Broxtowe PD rights condition narrowed; costs awarded

Broxtowe PD rights have been restored in part to a converted Nottinghamshire barn after a Planning Inspector ruled that a condition stripping away every form of permitted development within its curtilage was too broad. The decision, dated 9th October 2026, replaces the restriction with a targeted list of works requiring a planning application.

The appeal concerns Crabcroft Farm at Awsworth, where permission granted in 2018 allowed a barn to be extended and converted into a dwelling. Graham Wraight accepted that further enlargement could damage the Green Belt, but found no justification for banning alterations that would not add to the dwelling’s size.

The case also carries a financial warning for councils. In a separate costs decision associated with the same appeal, the Inspector ordered Broxtowe Borough Council to meet the appellant’s appeal costs because it failed to engage with the central objection to the blanket condition. The costs document bears a different decision date, 9th September 2026; the merits decision is dated 9th October.

Why Broxtowe PD rights were restricted

The original permission, reference 18/00267/FUL, was granted on 20th July 2018 for the extension and conversion of a barn to a house, together with access and fencing. Condition 3 sought to prohibit development of any kind within the residential curtilage without specific written planning permission, notwithstanding the General Permitted Development Order.

The condition applied far beyond conventional extensions. As written, it caught alterations that might make no difference to the footprint, volume or perceived openness of the Green Belt. The council’s decision notice gave its reason as protecting the appearance of the area, with reference to Policy 10 of the 2014 Aligned Core Strategy.

When Adam Watson applied under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary the condition, the authority refused. Its defence at appeal relied instead on protecting the Green Belt. The Inspector noted that the council had not explained the difference between the original stated reason and the reason it advanced in the proceedings.

That discrepancy was not an automatic victory for the appellant. The Inspector considered whether there was a sound planning justification for some restriction, rather than deciding the appeal merely because the reasons had changed.

The line between a blanket ban and a justified restriction

The August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework provides at Policy DM6.2.c that conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights without clear justification. The government’s Planning Practice Guidance on conditions also warns that broad removal of rights for small-scale works may fail tests of necessity and reasonableness.

The Inspector found that the original wording did not identify which rights might harm Green Belt openness and which could safely remain available. Broxtowe had supplied no substantive evidence that it had assessed the separate classes of the GPDO before withdrawing them all. He therefore regarded the unqualified restriction as neither reasonable nor necessary.

However, he rejected the suggestion that every permitted development right should return. The barn’s earlier extensions were said to represent 59% of the original building’s volume. The appellant did not contest that figure. Broxtowe’s local policy refers to cumulative additions exceeding 30% of original volume as disproportionate, although that threshold did not prevent approval of the conversion when originally assessed.

The Inspector reasoned that allowing further house extensions as of right could aggravate the already substantial enlargement and lead to inappropriate Green Belt development. A narrowly drawn restriction on enlargements and outbuildings therefore remained defensible. This is an important distinction: a condition can be overreaching in part without its underlying planning concern being invalid.

Which classes remain restricted?

The new permission expressly withholds Schedule 2, Part 1 Classes A, AA, B, D and E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. They cover important categories of house enlargement or alteration, including extensions, additional storeys, roof additions, porches and incidental buildings in the garden.

Rather than reproducing the original prohibition of ‘development of any kind’, the substitute condition prevents enlargement by extension or additional storeys and the erection of incidental buildings without a fresh planning permission. The Inspector linked those restrictions to the danger of further disproportionate built form in the Green Belt.

It is therefore inaccurate to describe the ruling as granting unlimited permission for future domestic work. Some rights return because they are not named in the amended restriction, but ordinary GPDO limits, other planning conditions and statutory controls still apply. A homeowner should not assume that a particular proposal is lawful without checking the precise wording of the replacement permission.

Equally, the case does not establish that local authorities can never remove permitted development rights on a Green Belt conversion. The Inspector expressly recognised that the nature and extent of the earlier enlargement provided case-specific justification for restricting further extension and detached outbuilding works.

Why a full costs award followed

The separate costs decision found that Broxtowe had not adequately answered the applicant’s central complaint that the condition prohibited works unrelated to an increase in building size. It relied largely on its delegated report rather than addressing the arguments or appeal decisions put forward against the blanket prohibition.

The Inspector concluded that the authority could have maintained its substantive Green Belt concern while narrowing the restriction. Its failure to consider that route caused unnecessary appeal expenditure, in his assessment. He therefore ordered a full award of appeal costs, payable by the council to the appellant.

The order does not specify a sum. It provides for costs to be assessed by the Senior Courts Costs Office if the parties cannot agree the amount. Nor is the date discrepancy between the associated documents something to gloss over: the costs decision itself states 9th September 2026, while the principal section 73 decision states 9th October 2026.

Costs are not awarded simply because an appellant wins. The relevant test is whether unreasonable behaviour caused unnecessary or wasted expense. Here, the significant criticism was not that the authority sought to protect the Green Belt, but that it failed to engage with why a complete ban was necessary.

What the Inspector did with the remaining conditions

Section 73 creates a new planning permission subject to its own conditions. The Inspector noted that conditions from the original permission which continued to be necessary should normally be restated. The development had already started, so a fresh commencement condition was unnecessary.

Conditions concerning gates, investigative survey work and remedial measures had been discharged. The council said that requirements for a dropped crossing and surfacing of the access drive had not been discharged, but the Inspector did not reimpose those either: the access was established and there was no indication of resulting highway safety harm.

The permission that emerged from the appeal therefore retained the approved drawings condition and the revised permitted development restriction. It did not create a free-standing permission for an unrelated scheme; it dealt with the specific barn conversion and the conditions attached to that permission.

A practical lesson for section 73 applications

Applicants seeking to vary restrictions on domestic permitted development should examine the individual GPDO classes rather than asking only for complete deletion. A schedule separating extensions and outbuildings from alterations that do not enlarge the property can expose whether a condition is broader than its planning purpose requires.

For councils, the decision demonstrates the value of documenting a tailored justification. Where the relevant harm is the cumulative size of additions in the Green Belt, it is difficult to defend a prohibition on unrelated domestic improvements without further reasoning. The Inspector referred to Warwick District Council v Secretary of State [2022] EWHC 2145 (Admin) while considering the relationship between extensions and separate outbuildings.

Planning Geek explains the wider principle in its guide to permitted development rights removed by a planning condition. The distinction also matters when advising on proposed extensions, householders’ certificates of lawfulness and enforcement action.

The primary documents are the Inspector’s appeal decision and associated costs decision, recorded by Appealbase, with the Planning Inspectorate case record for appeal 6009305. National policy context appears in the government’s 17th August 2026 planning policy update and the official conditions guidance.

Planning Geek takeaway: challenge an unjustified blanket ban, but do not confuse the return of some permitted development rights with permission for further Green Belt enlargement.