Appeal 3276989

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the development is of a use and form appropriate for its back garden location and the implications for the living conditions for nearby occupiers in terms of noise and disturbance.

The background to the appeal proposal is material to any appraisal of the application’s merits. The building was initially approved on 27 April 2020 under application ref. DM2020/00540: ‘Lawful Development Certificate: [name] or Development’ for the erection of a single storey detached outbuilding to rear garden.

The internal layout in that application indicated the use to be for a gym, office, storage, and a w.c, all of which are incidental uses to the dwelling as they do not constitute primary living accommodation. This approval was given because the building and its use met the criteria set out in Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).

A planning statement submitted on behalf of the appellant says that whilst the original intention was to use the building for a gym, office, and storage he was out of the country during the entire build process and ‘the builder took it upon himself to build an ancillary annexe instead of its original use’. However, not only is the layout quite different to that approved, including two en-suite bedrooms and a central kitchen / living area, but the internal finish and facilities are to a high quality domestic standard uncharacteristic of an outbuilding for uses including a gym and storage.

Because of these major discrepancies from the building approved as permitted development and their cost implications, I can give the appellant’s explanation little or no credence. And if, as the grounds of appeal claim, the building was initially used as an office for the applicant and a study for his son ceasing at the end of January 2021, it would have been in the accommodation as now built in the form of self-contained living space or in the final stages of its construction.

Nor is the appellant’s explanation consistent with the erection of a fence to provide the outbuilding with its own private garden area separate from the house garden, together with a footpath from the outbuilding’s entrance to the gate to [address] at the side of the dwelling. And despite enforcement action to secure the removal of the fence, the concrete posts remain in position and the fence panels are still stored on site.

Whilst these observations establish the overall context for the Council’s refusal of the appeal proposal, they also support the view in the officer’s report that neither the internal layout and facilities, nor the size of the outbuilding are appropriate for a building genuinely ancillary to the house. The facilities would provide complete self-containment, whilst the new boundary fence and paved footway additionally enable independent access without entering the main dwelling. Moreover, their construction is one of a permanent form which is entirely at odds with the appellant’s case that the outbuilding would be solely ancillary to No. 16 so that the large family could in future live as an entity but with adequate living space and facilities.

As regards size, the outbuilding has a built footprint of 81.5m2 and the host dwelling’s ground floor equivalent is less at 59m2 . And in combination with the two separate bedrooms rather than one, this scale and layout of the accommodation would seem both unsuitable and in excess of any reasonable requirement for ancillary space to be used by the appellant’s elderly parents.

I also consider that the fairly tight knit development pattern in the locality does not suggest that a large outbuilding used for residential accommodation, albeit ancillary to the house, would avoid the potential for noise and disturbance. The comings and goings between the outbuilding and the house and the late-night internal lighting for the outbuilding’s habitation are likely to be more of a problem than for a building used on an incidental basis as a gym, a home office and storage. In this regard, although there are a couple or so letters of support for the application, neighbours in [address] have written to express their concerns.

The grounds of appeal refer to the current separation of family members, with some abroad and the difficulties of travelling caused by Covid-19. However, whilst I sympathise with these problems, the pandemic is unlikely to be an ongoing factor that in itself would justify the development, which if approved would in all likelihood be a permanent use.

I have noted the other examples of ancillary outbuildings in Sutton and the various references to planning policy support for family accommodation. I acknowledge that an outbuilding, suitably regulated by the conditions suggested by the Council in the Appeal Questionnaire (plus a condition 2 precluding garden severance), can in principle allow different generations of a family to be accommodated at a property. As is the case here, an outbuilding is normally intended for one or more grandparents (the so called ‘granny annex’), and to avoid an abuse of the planning system it usual for a local Planning Authority to be fully satisfied of a Bona fide need before permission is granted.

From the evidence before me in this appeal I do not consider this has been demonstrated at [site address] . The size and layout of the outbuilding are also unsuitable and there are indications that the facilities could be used by third parties, as already been alleged in neighbour objections. I am also concerned in respect of the potential for noise and disturbance for nearby residents.

Accordingly, the appeal proposal would not be in accordance with the requirements of Policies 13d), 28 & 29 of the Sutton Local Plan 2016 -2031 adopted in 2018 and paragraph 130f) of Government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

For the reasons explained above and considering all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.