515 Leeds Road, Scholes, Leeds, LS15 4DA

515 Leeds Road, Scholes, Leeds, LS15 4DA — Leeds City Council — by M J Francis BA (Hons) MA MSc MClfA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 July 2024

515 Leeds Road, Scholes, Leeds, LS15 4DA — Leeds City Council — 515 Leeds Road, Scholes, Leeds LS15 4DA • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a grant of planning permission subject to conditions. • The appeal is made by Mr D Smith against the decision of Leeds City Council. • The application Ref is 24/00348/FU, dated 3 January 2024, was approved on 13 March 2024 and planning permission was granted subject to conditions. • The development permitted is demolition of existing rear ground floor extension, single storey rear extension to rear of garage with canopy roof to rear of dwelling, new pitched roof to existing garage, single storey front porch and garage extension, removal of greenhouse. • The condition in dispute is No 5 which states that: • Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Orders revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) planning permission shall be obtained before any development within Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, D or E is carried out. • The reason given for the condition is: In the interest of the protection of the Green Belt.

515 Leeds Road, Scholes, Leeds, LS15 4DA — Leeds City Council — in the interest of the protection of the openness of the Green Belt. 1 Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, D and E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO). https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

515 Leeds Road, Scholes, Leeds, LS15 4DA — Leeds City Council — in the interest of the protection of the openness of the Green Belt. 1 Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, D and E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO). https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/24/3342168 Reasons 5. The appeal site is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling with garden and parking area to the front and a small garden to the rear. This stretch of Leeds Road where the proposal is sited consists of a long row of semi-detached houses of differing styles. They back onto agricultural land to the rear and overlook farmland to the front. 6. The site is in the Green Belt. The aim of Green Belt policy is to keep land permanently open, with the essential characteristics of Green Belts being their openness and their permanence. The consented development was considered to result in limited development within the Green Belt in accordance with Policy N33 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review–2006)2, 2006 (UDP). This policy broadly reflects paragraph 154 c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which allows the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 7.

515 Leeds Road, Scholes, Leeds, LS15 4DA — Leeds City Council — in the interest of the protection of the openness of the Green Belt. Whilst disproportionate additions are not defined in the Framework, Policy HDG3 in Leeds Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, 2012, (SPD) considers that a 30% increase over and above the volume of the original building is a reasonable interpretation of a limited extension. There is no dispute between the main parties that the approved extensions, following the demolition of an existing rear extension and a greenhouse, would result in a 29.47% increase in volume of the original dwelling. 8. The Council has set out that the removal of PD rights from the approval provided an opportunity to maintain control over harmful development in the Green Belt and restrict future sprawl. Whilst not meant to prevent development, the condition was seen by the Council as one of the considerations necessary to make the development proposal acceptable. 9. The consented scheme was reduced in size from the original proposal. The sun room and greenhouse, which are required to be removed as part of the consent, are referred to by the Council as being of a size that could be built under PD rights, or replaced following the grant of planning permission.

515 Leeds Road, Scholes, Leeds, LS15 4DA — Leeds City Council — in the interest of the protection of the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, they considered it reasonable to remove PD rights for Classes A, B, D and E. 10. The approved development has a 3-metre rear extension along one boundary of the property, with a covered area next to it. Therefore, this limits what could be built under Class A of the GPDO to a small, single-storey extension, 3 metres in depth from the rear of the original building. Any larger extension up to 6 metres3, would require the Council to be notified as to whether prior approval is needed. As there is already an extension along the side of the house, this would restrict any further extensions that could be built using PD rights in this location. 11. Whilst Class B of the GPDO could allow extensions to the roof, including a rear dormer extension, these would be limited by the volume increase set out in the GPDO and must conform to the relevant conditions. 2 Volume 1: Written Statement 3 Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO). https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

515 Leeds Road, Scholes, Leeds, LS15 4DA — Leeds City Council — in the interest of the protection of the openness of the Green Belt. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/24/3342168 12. Class D allows a small porch outside any external door of the house. The consented scheme includes a front porch extension, and even if the appellant wanted a porch outside a rear door, this would be limited by the size allowed in the GPDO. Moreover, a small rear porch would not harm the openness of the Green Belt. 13. Class E would allow within the rear garden, buildings etc incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. However, the rear garden is small. Whilst the Council consider that a building could be placed immediately adjacent to the rear boundary, height restrictions and distances from boundaries apply. Therefore, any building would not be large. Moreover, a small garden shed or other structure within this tightly defined suburban residential garden plot would not harm the openness of the Green Belt in this location. 14. Paragraph 54 of the Framework states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification for doing so.

515 Leeds Road, Scholes, Leeds, LS15 4DA — Leeds City Council — in the interest of the protection of the openness of the Green Belt. Furthermore, the Planning Practice Guidance also advises that conditions of this nature will rarely pass the test of necessity and should only be used in exceptional circumstances. Moreover, area-wide or blanket removal of freedoms to carry out small scale domestic and non- domestic alterations that would otherwise not require an application for planning permission are unlikely to meet the tests of reasonableness or necessity4. 15. The GPDO does not differentiate between these rights in the Green Belt. Therefore, small-scale additions allowed under these rights would not generally conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt or the essential characteristics of openness and permanence. In addition, the UDP and SPD Policies do not include removing PD rights in the Green Belt, and even if they did, this would not remove the need to consider whether the condition would accord with the tests in the Framework for valid conditions, along with other aspects of national policy. 16. The Council considered that the consented scheme was contained within the domestic setting of the site and did not harm the character and openness of the Green Belt.

515 Leeds Road, Scholes, Leeds, LS15 4DA — Leeds City Council — in the interest of the protection of the openness of the Green Belt. This would be the case with any future extensions allowed under PD rights which would be within the suburban garden setting that exists along Leeds Road. Whilst any future extensions built under PD rights would be likely to exceed the 30% increase in volume as set out in the SPD, these would be limited because of the consented permission and the limited size of the rear garden. Therefore, they would be unlikely to result in disproportionate additions to the original building. 17. I therefore conclude that the disputed condition is not reasonable or necessary in the interests of protecting the openness of the Green Belt. I shall therefore allow the appeal and vary the original permission by deleting the disputed condition. Other Matters 18. The Council’s statement refers to two appeal decisions. The first at Fairfield House, Bramham5 was for the replacement of two semi-detached houses with two detached dwellings in the Green Belt. However, the scale of development 4 21a-017-20190723 5 APP/4720/W/22/3294783 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

515 Leeds Road, Scholes, Leeds, LS15 4DA — Leeds City Council — in the interest of the protection of the openness of the Green Belt. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/W/24/3342168 in this case is much greater than the appeal site and issues of neighbouring and visual amenity, as well as the effects on the Green Belt were considered. Therefore, this is not comparable to the case before me. 19. The second decision at 2 Swillington Lane6 was an appeal against a condition removing PD rights. In this case, personal circumstances were put forward. Moreover, the property was detached, in extensive grounds, and in a prominent location, making it highly visible within the area. Therefore, any additions to the house under Class A and B and utilising Class E of the GPDO would cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt. These circumstances are not the same as this appeal. Therefore, I give this limited weight. 20. The parties reference properties along Leeds Road where extensions have been allowed, and in two cases where PD rights have been removed. These cases, as well as other submitted evidence demonstrate that each case must be determined on its own merits. Notwithstanding these decisions, I have determined the appeal based on the evidence before me. Conclusion 21. For the reasons set out above the appeal is allowed.

515 Leeds Road, Scholes, Leeds, LS15 4DA — Leeds City Council — M J Francis INSPECTOR 6 APP/M4720/W/23/3327986 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4