Take your pick

An inspector has deleted a condition on a permission for an extension to a house in north London, finding it unreasonable because it sought to nullify an extant permission (DCS Number 400-020-704).

Permission had been granted for rear extensions in 2017 and for a side extension in 2018. The latter permission carried a condition stating that it could not be implemented with the rear extensions, and that the applicants could implement either the 2018 extension or the 2017 extensions. This was because the council considered that there would be an adverse cumulative impact on the character of the site should both permissions be implemented.

The inspector came to the view that the distinct form and scale of the extensions meant that they would not appear as discordant additions, nor that the resulting building would appear disproportionate in size relative to neighbouring dwellings. In any event, he explained, “I am also required to consider whether the condition as worded would meet the tests set out in paragraph 206 of the Framework. The existing condition, as imposed, effectively prevents the appellant from implementing one of two permissions. I consider that it is unreasonable to impose a condition which would effectively nullify the grant of planning permission….”

Absolutely. You can’t give with one hand and take away with the other.

Further examples of unreasonable conditions can be found at section 4.412 of DCP Online.