Coventry BNG appeal fails despite permitted development win

A Coventry BNG appeal has been dismissed even though the Inspector agreed that a planning condition removing householder permitted development rights was unreasonable and unnecessary.

Appeal 6008793 concerned two new detached homes at Hogs End Farm on the north-western edge of Coventry. The appellant used section 73 to challenge a condition preventing extensions, additions, outbuildings and enclosures from being carried out under the GPDO.

The Inspector found that the Green Belt, Ancient Arden landscape and neighbouring amenity did not justify stripping away those rights. But the appeal still failed because granting a fresh permission would engage biodiversity net gain requirements and the existing self-build condition did not provide a reliable route to an exemption.

Why the Coventry BNG appeal produced a split result

The appeal site lies within the Green Belt and the Ancient Arden landscape character area. Planning permission had been granted in June 2025 for two dwellings. Condition 7 removed permitted development rights for buildings and enclosures within the curtilages and for extensions, enlargements and additions to the houses.

Coventry City Council said the restriction was needed to protect the appearance of the area, neighbouring amenity and the Green Belt. The appellant challenged it through a section 73 application.

The full appeal decision for 6008793 is hosted locally by Planning Geek. The Planning Inspectorate case record is also available online.

The Green Belt did not justify removing all PD rights

The Inspector found that the two dwelling plots were already established and sat close to other development. A strong rear hedgerow created a defined edge between the domestic plots and open countryside. Ordinary householder permitted development would therefore remain within established curtilages rather than extending domestic development further into the countryside.

The plots were not especially prominent from public viewpoints and existing vegetation would help screen domestic additions. An earlier appeal granting outline permission for four dwellings on the wider site had considered Green Belt openness without removing householder permitted development rights.

The Council had not demonstrated why these houses required a blanket restriction. The Inspector concluded that the disputed condition was neither reasonable nor necessary to protect the character of the dwellings, the Green Belt or the Ancient Arden landscape.

That reflects the wider principle explained in Planning Geek’s guide to permitted development rights removed by planning condition: a restriction needs a specific planning justification rather than a precautionary assumption.

Neighbouring amenity did not rescue the condition

The Council also relied on potential effects on neighbours. The Inspector found adequate separation from existing and approved homes, including long rear gardens along Hawkes Mill Lane. Ordinary GPDO development was unlikely to cause unacceptable loss of privacy, light or outlook.

There was also an awkward inconsistency for the Council. When refusing a separate application for outbuildings, it had concluded that those structures would not harm neighbouring amenity. The condition therefore failed on this ground too.

A fresh permission brought BNG into the appeal

In the Coventry BNG appeal, the difficulty arose because allowing a section 73 appeal would create a fresh planning permission. The Inspector therefore had to consider the statutory biodiversity net gain regime as it applied to that new permission.

The Council had not relied on BNG as a refusal reason, but the Inspector identified biodiversity as a material consideration and gave the parties an opportunity to comment.

The 2025 permission contained another condition requiring the dwellings to be constructed and occupied as self-build homes. The Council had used that condition because it considered the development would otherwise be subject to mandatory BNG.

The self-build condition could not secure the exemption

The Inspector considered that the relevant self-build requirement needed to be tied to the owner rather than simply running with the land. The existing condition did not achieve that.

An alternative occupation condition was not seen as a reliable answer either. The Inspector was not satisfied that a condition requiring occupation by the person who constructed the home would be sufficiently enforceable or meet the policy tests for conditions.

Without a secure mechanism demonstrating that the development qualified for the claimed exemption, the Inspector could not be satisfied that the fresh permission would comply with Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Biodiversity became decisive.

Planning Geek’s biodiversity net gain guide explains the current regime. A recent retrospective BNG condition appeal also shows how section 73, BNG and permitted development rights can interact differently on other facts.

Winning on the condition was not enough

The Coventry BNG appeal result is unusually clear. The appellant won the central argument about permitted development rights but still lost the appeal.

The Inspector found the condition unreasonable and unnecessary. Yet because the fresh permission would create a biodiversity problem that had not been satisfactorily resolved, the appeal was dismissed.

That is an important section 73 lesson. A variation application is not a surgical exercise confined to the sentence an applicant wants to change. It creates a new planning permission and can bring current statutory requirements and material considerations into play.

Why section 73 strategy now needs a BNG check

Before seeking to vary a permission that straddles a change in the BNG regime, applicants need to check what the resulting fresh permission would trigger. The same applies where the earlier permission relied on an exemption or bespoke condition that may not operate in the same way later.

The decision also shows why a planning condition cannot necessarily substitute for a mechanism that the underlying legal regime requires to operate differently.

On the PD point, the decision remains useful. Green Belt location did not justify removing householder rights as a precaution. The plots were defined, screening existed and the Council had not shown why the normal GPDO limitations were insufficient.

Planning Geek has previously reported on the Slough appeal over conditions removing permitted development rights and an Inspector decision narrowing a PD condition under the 2026 NPPF. Appeal 6008793 adds the biodiversity twist.

Planning Geek view

The value of the Coventry BNG appeal is that it separates two questions that are easy to muddle together.

On the planning-condition issue, the appellant had the stronger case. The Council had not justified a blanket removal of ordinary householder rights simply because the homes sat in the Green Belt and Ancient Arden landscape.

On biodiversity, however, the section 73 route created a fresh-permission problem that the existing self-build condition could not solve.

The practical lesson is simple: before challenging or varying a condition, check what else the fresh permission will trigger. Sometimes the condition you want to remove is not the issue that ultimately decides the appeal.