Bedford Borough Council has been ordered to pay the full costs of an appeal after refusing a garage conversion on the basis of a condition attached to a garage which had already been demolished.
A later permission allowed extensions which replaced the original detached garage, without imposing an equivalent restriction. The Inspector found that the council had not adequately considered that permission, even though it was in its own records.
Inspector S Lo allowed Mrs Mehmi’s lawful development certificate appeal 3364376 in Great Denham on 23rd September 2026. A separate decision awarded full appeal costs.
The garage condition related to a different building
The council had relied on condition 8 of a 1997 reserved-matters permission, reference 97/00445/REM, which restricted converting the original garages to living accommodation.
But the detached garage at this property had subsequently been demolished. A 2015 permission, reference 15/01139/FUL, approved side and rear extensions to the house, creating the part of the building where the new works were proposed.
That later permission contained no equivalent removal of permitted development rights. The old garage condition did not continue to control the replacement accommodation simply because a garage function had been provided within the extended house.
The proposed activity room would remain part of the home’s residential use. The external works comprised two front windows, a pedestrian door and two rooflights in a side roof slope.
The Inspector found the relevant works lawful under Classes A and C. The certificate expressly includes obscure glazing for the rooflights, rather than granting an unrestricted approval for any rooflight specification.
The council had already looked at the planning history
In the costs decision, Lo acknowledged that the applicant bore the burden of proving lawfulness. The original certificate application had not expressly cited the 2015 permission.
Nevertheless, the plans showed that the detached garage had gone and that the proposed alterations were in the extended house. The application also identified relevant permitted development requirements, including matching materials and rooflight projection limits.
The Inspector considered that sufficient information had been supplied to enable a decision. Finding the 2015 permission would not have required an exhaustive examination of the property’s fairly limited planning history.
The council had, after all, examined the history far enough to rely on the 1997 restriction. Lo found that they did not adequately consider the effect of the 2015 planning permission
.
The council accepted during the appeal that permitted development rights were available. Its refusal had nevertheless delayed development which should clearly have been permitted, causing unnecessary or wasted appeal expense. A full costs award was justified.
Not the earlier Bedford garage appeal
This is separate from the recently reported Woodman Way garage appeal, which concerned the meaning of living accommodation in a condition. Here, the decisive issue was which building the old restriction actually controlled after redevelopment under a later permission.
Our guides to planning conditions, garage conversions and proposed lawful development certificates explain the wider checks.
The costs decision does not set a cash amount or impose a fine. Mrs Mehmi is invited to submit her appeal costs to the council, with assessment by the Senior Courts Costs Office if the amount cannot be agreed.
0 Comments