Instead, he limited the restriction to Part 1 Class B roof additions and alterations, including dormer windows, because he considered that only development which would be prominent from outside the site justified additional control.
The appeal, reference 6008883, was allowed on 30th September 2026. The decision shows how Policy DM6 in the August 2026 NPPF can narrow a permitted development condition.
The permitted development condition covered six Part 1 classes
The underlying appeal concerned a proposed dormer bungalow on land beside an existing home on Brethergate. Although described as a dormer bungalow, the plans showed bedrooms in the roof space with gable windows rather than dormer windows. The council had refused the application, with the main appeal issues being character and appearance and the living conditions of existing and future residents.
Those issues were resolved in the appellant’s favour, but the condition discussion is the more useful practitioner point.
North Lincolnshire suggested a condition removing permitted development rights under Classes A, B, C, D, E and G of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO. In broad terms, those classes cover extensions and alterations, roof enlargements, other roof alterations, porches, buildings and other development within the curtilage, and chimneys, flues and soil or vent pipes.
The proposed permitted development condition was therefore a wide restriction across several different types of future domestic development. It was not a condition removing every permitted development right in the GPDO, and it would be wrong to describe it that way. But it did go well beyond the roof works that ultimately concerned the Inspector.
Planning Geek’s guide to planning conditions removing permitted development rights makes the same practical point: the exact classes removed matter, and each restriction needs to be justified by the planning harm it is intended to prevent.
Policy DM6 now puts the justification test in the NPPF itself
The August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework reorganised national policy and introduced Policy DM6 on the use of planning conditions and obligations.
DM6(1) repeats the core planning-condition tests in modern policy language. Conditions should be necessary, relevant to the development and to planning considerations, sufficiently precise to be complied with and enforced, and reasonable in all other respects.
DM6(2)(c) then deals directly with national permitted development rights. Under the heading “Conditions should not be used to”, it says: “Restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so.”
That wording does not create a rule that conditions removing permitted development rights are automatically invalid. Nor does it mean every broad restriction will fail. The question is whether the decision-maker can identify a clear planning reason for the particular rights being removed.
This is especially important where several Part 1 classes are grouped into one condition. A reason that supports control over dormers does not necessarily explain why porches, outbuildings or other roof alterations also need to be brought under full planning control.
The Inspector focused on what would be prominent outside the site
Inspector Eggleton recorded that the council wanted the six classes removed to protect the historic landscape. The site lies within the Area of Special Historic Landscape Interest of the Isle of Axholme, although the council’s specialist adviser had not objected to the proposed dwelling itself.
Applying DM6(2)(c), he said the policy requires “clear justification” for restricting national permitted development rights.
He then narrowed the planning harm. The Inspector was satisfied that only development which would be “prominent from outside the site” justified restriction.
He therefore “restricted the condition to Class B”. That produced a tighter permitted development condition than the six-class restriction requested.
The imposed condition says that, notwithstanding Part 1 Class B, “no addition or alteration shall be permitted to the roof”.
That is a useful example of matching the scope of a condition to the identified harm rather than retaining a wider restriction simply because it had been requested.
Why the permitted development condition retained Class B
Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO provides the familiar householder permitted development rights. Class B specifically permits the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof, subject to detailed limitations and conditions.
Typical Class B development includes rear dormer enlargements and some hip-to-gable roof works. It does not give an unrestricted right to alter any roof in any way. The statutory limits include controls on height, principal-elevation roof slopes, additional roof volume and protected locations.
For this appeal, the Inspector treated Class B works as the category with the potential to be sufficiently visually prominent from outside the site to justify a permitted development condition.
That reasoning also shows why the condition should not be read as a general statement that Class B is always more suitable for restriction than Classes A, C, D, E or G. The conclusion was site-specific and tied to the landscape concern identified in this case.
The appeal itself was allowed
The dwelling appeal was allowed for more conventional reasons.
The proposal was for a bungalow with rooms in the roof. It would sit back from the existing dwelling within a relatively large plot. The Inspector noted that bungalows were common nearby and found that the building would sit comfortably within the site with suitable boundary treatment.
He did not find unacceptable harm to character or appearance. He also rejected the council’s concerns about living conditions. Although one side window in the existing bungalow would experience some reduction in outlook and morning light, the separation of about 3.8 metres meant the effect was not considered unacceptably harmful.
The proposed new dwelling would also have a rear garden of a suitable size, while the existing house would retain a relatively spacious garden.
The Inspector noted that the site was within the settlement boundary and that there was no accepted five-year housing land supply. He applied the revised NPPF, including Policy S3 and the approach to development within settlements under Policy S4, and concluded that the benefits of approval were not substantially outweighed by adverse effects.
This is about justification, not a ban on broad conditions
The important practitioner lesson is narrower than some headlines might suggest.
This appeal does not establish that every multi-class or so-called blanket permitted development condition is unlawful, unreasonable or incapable of meeting the planning tests.
What it does show is an Inspector using the new national wording to interrogate the scope of the restriction. The council identified historic-landscape protection as the reason, but the Inspector then asked which forms of future development actually needed controlling for that reason.
Only Class B survived that exercise.
That approach is consistent with an earlier Planning Geek report on a Slough appeal concerning removal of permitted development rights, where site-specific justification was also central. The Westwoodside decision is the cleaner post-August-2026 example because the Inspector expressly cited DM6(2)(c).
What applicants should ask about a permitted development condition
For applicants, the sensible response to a proposed permitted development condition is not simply to object that permitted development rights should never be removed.
Instead, ask what harm the council is trying to prevent and then test each class against that harm.
If the concern is roof prominence, Class B may be the real issue. If the concern is overlooking from a future extension, a different and more targeted control may be justified. If an outbuilding would have no relationship to the identified harm, the authority should explain why Class E is being removed rather than treating it as part of a standard package.
The same discipline applies to councils. A permitted development condition should identify the harm it prevents. DM6 gives decision notices and committee reports a clear national policy reason to explain why each restriction is necessary rather than relying on formulaic wording.
That does not mean every condition needs an essay. It does mean the evidence and reasoning should allow somebody reading the decision to understand why the specific permitted development rights have been removed.
Why the Westwoodside decision matters
This is an individual appeal decision, not a binding court judgment. No court authority was relied upon in the decision.
The council requested a wide Part 1 restriction covering six classes. The Inspector accepted that some control was justified, but used NPPF Policy DM6 to reduce the permitted development condition to the right that matched the identified visual concern.
The same discipline belongs in the review of draft conditions, delegated reports, committee resolutions and appeal statements: identify the harm, then justify the rights actually removed.
For more on the appeal process itself, see Planning Geek’s guide to planning appeals. The primary national rules for Class B remain in Schedule 2 Part 1 of the GPDO, while DM6 is now the national policy starting point for conditions that restrict those rights.
0 Comments