Householder planning application - a. new door to side elevation b. replace rear elevation door with full length window c. rear elevation Juliette balcony removed and partial infill to allow for replacement window d. painting of garage door e. replacement front door” without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref DC/25/0232/HH dated 6 June 2025

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 December 2025 by L Francis BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 09 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001367 Chapel House, 23A Garland Street, Bury St Edmunds IP33 1EZ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. • The appeal is made by Ian Absolon against the decision of West Suffolk Council. • The application Ref is DC/25/1093/VAR. • The application sought planning permission for “Householder planning application - a. new door to side elevation b. replace rear elevation door with full length window c. rear elevation Juliette balcony removed and partial infill to allow for replacement window d. painting of garage door e. replacement front door” without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref DC/25/0232/HH dated 6 June 2025. • The condition in dispute is No 2 which states that: The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the following approved plans : 3013-0100 Rev P01 Location plan received 11 February 2025; 3013-0301 Rev P08 Proposed elevations & floor plans received 22 April 2025; 3013-0302 Rev P01 Proposed details received 22 April 2025; 3013-0303 Rev P01 Door details received 29 April 2025; 3013-0101 Rev P03 Proposed block plan received 2 May 2025. • The reason given for the condition is: To define the scope and extent of this permission. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Background and Main Issues 2. Permission was granted in June 2025 for various alterations to the elevations of the dwelling. The appeal application sought to vary the plans condition (2) to allow the replacement of a rear first floor window with a pair of French doors and a box gutter. 3. In the Court of Appeal judgment, John Leslie Finney v Welsh Ministers & Carmarthenshire County Council, Energiekontor (Uk) Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 1868 (the Finney judgment) it was established that an application under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) may not be used to obtain a permission that would require a variation to the terms of the ‘operative’ part of the planning permission, which would include the description of the development for which the original permission was granted. As it was not presented in evidence, both main parties were given the opportunity to comment on this judgment and how it relates to the appeal. Comments were received from the Council, which I have taken into account in my decision. Appeal Decision 6001367 2 4. In light of the above, the main issues are: • whether the appeal proposal can be considered under section 73 of the Act; and, if so, • the effect of the appeal proposal on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to privacy. Reasons Section 73 5. The description of development on the original permission (Ref: DC/25/0232/HH) was “Householder planning application - a. new door to side elevation b. replace rear elevation door with full length window c. rear elevation Juliette balcony removed and partial infill to allow for replacement window d. painting of garage door e. replacement front door”. This description is specific and makes no reference to the replacement of the window with French doors and installation of the box gutter, the subject of this appeal. The appeal proposal would therefore conflict with the original description of development. It follows that this particular amendment is beyond the powers under section 73 of the Act and a fresh planning application would be required. 6. The Finney judgment is clear that an application under section 73 of the Act may not be used to obtain a permission that would require a variation to the operative part of the planning permission. 7. Given my findings above, it is not necessary for me to go on to consider the appeal proposal’s effect upon the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. Conclusion 8. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. L Francis INSPECTOR