Appeal 3292285

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issues to be:

a) whether the annexe is ancillary to the main dwelling or is tantamount to a separate planning unit;

b) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and;

c) if a separate dwelling has been created whether the proposed development would result in a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future occupiers.

The appeal property, [site address] [site address] is a two-storey detached house dating from the 1970’s located on a corner plot within a residential estate of properties of a similar age and design.

The appellant proposes the use of the former garage, extended under a previous permission to provide accommodation at first floor level, as an annexe to the main house.

No alterations would be made to the external appearance of the outbuilding. However, the annexe is, as I saw on site, fitted out so that it can be occupied as a self-contained independent living unit.

Further, the original garden has been sub-divided, by a fence, between the main house and annexe thereby forming two separate plots. There is a single storey ancillary outbuilding in the garden of the annexe. Furthermore, from what I have seen and read, I understand that the appellant is currently living in the annexe, identified on site as 2a, and the main dwelling is occupied by a third party.

For the reasons set out above I conclude in respect of the first main issue that the annexe is being occupied as a separate planning unit.

Policy DES1 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan ([name] 2019) (DMP), requires that all new development, amongst other things, at:

Criterion 1: promotes and reinforces local distinctiveness and respects the character of the surrounding area, including positive physical characteristics of local neighbourhoods and the visual appearance of the immediate street scene; and,

Criterion 3: has due regard to the layout, density, plot sizes, building siting, scale, massing, height, and roofscapes of the surrounding area, the relationship to neighbouring buildings, and important views into and out of the site.

The host property has been the subject of much alteration. In addition to a first-floor addition, the fenestration has been altered and the cladding changed. However, by reason of its three-dimensional form and location it is nevertheless clearly an established part of the original estate layout and design.

The new dwelling and outbuilding would, due to the size of the plot when subdivided result in a cramped form of development not reflecting the layout, density and plot sizes of the estate or the established relationship between neighbouring buildings.

In addition, by reason of its form, scale and design, what I have found to be a separate planning unit here, would not reflect the layout, massing, height, and roofscape of the surrounding area.

Accordingly, I conclude in respect of the second main issue that what is tantamount to a new dwelling would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area contrary to the aims of DMP Policy DES1.

From the evidence, I note that the Council contends that the [name] for the dwelling as designed is [address] metres, and the current dwelling has a floor area of some [address] metres. These figures are not disputed by the appellant. Accordingly, the new dwelling would fall below the required standard.

The application drawings indicate that the unit was designed to have two double bedrooms to accommodate up to four people. Accordingly, based on limited evidence before me on this matter I am not satisfied that the new dwelling would be large enough to provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation for that level of future occupation.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not meet the high quality of design required by the development plan taken as a whole.

In reaching my decision in respect of this appeal I have been sympathetic of the appellant’s personal circumstances. However, these considerations do not outweigh the substantial harm that I have identified in this case.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.