# Cowleas, Spickett's Lane, Cuddington

- **Decision:** part-allowed, 25 August 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: David Kay
- **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6006053
- **Application reference:** 25/01948/APP
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Appeal against conditions 5, 12, 13, 14, 15 on a replacement 5-bed dwelling with detached garage
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** settlement-edge, conservation-area
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** DM6(2)(c)
- **Development plan policies:** Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2021 H6c, BE1, BE2, NE4, Cuddington NP 2022 CND05
- **Main issues:** necessity of conditions
- **Tags:** tier-2, conditions-appeal, pd-rights-condition-refused, inclusive-access, no-consultation-on-2026-framework, replacement-dwelling

## Summary
A s78 appeal against five conditions on a replacement dwelling next to the Cuddington Conservation Area. Two conditions were deleted:
- the garage-use restriction (5), because any conversion would need permission anyway;
- the removal of permitted development rights (12), which failed DM6(2)(c)'s "clear justification" test given the neutral heritage impact and the limited scope for PD on this site.

The M4(2) accessibility condition (13) and the landscaping conditions (14 and 15) were retained.

## What made the difference
The Council's own heritage officer had found a neutral effect on the conservation area, which left nothing to justify removing PD rights under DM6(2)(c) and the PPG's "exceptional circumstances" test. The M4(2) condition stood because this is a newly designed dwelling. The viability claim was unsupported.

## Policy findings
- **DM6(2)(c): fail.** PD removal (Classes A, B, E) not clearly justified; site outside CA with heritage officer finding neutral impact; condition 12 deleted (DL 13-20)
- **VALP H6c: accord.** M4(2) condition 13 retained; new-build can comply at minimal cost, viability claim unsubstantiated (DL 21-27)
- **DM6: fail.** garage-use condition 5 unnecessary as conversion needs permission anyway (forward of principal elevation, GPDO E.1(c)) (DL 7-12)

## Key facts
- Conditions 5 (garage use) and 12 (PD removal) deleted; 13 (M4(2)), 14 and 15 (landscaping) retained (DL 1)
- Inspector found the parties' relied-on Framework policies "unchanged" by the 17 Aug revision and decided without consultation (DL 2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006053
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/942229f3-799d-4ad9-9242-17b16d4d29b6

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006053.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.