Appeal 3353292

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for conversion of a stables to an annexe, closure of existing access to the dwelling at [site address] , Essex [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/01659/HH, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with submitted drawing no. 2024-843-002 [name].

The accommodation hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the existing drive to [site address] has been removed and returned to garden land as shown in the submitted drawing no. 2024-843-002 [name].

The annexe hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as [site address] as identified on the submitted plans. It shall not be sold, transferred, leased or otherwise disposed of except by way of a disposal comprising the whole of the site edged red on the submitted drawing no. 2024-843-002 [name].

Whether the proposal can demonstrate a physical and functional relationship with the host dwelling and be considered as annex accommodation, taking account of development plan policy and any other material considerations.

[site address] is a three-bedroom house standing on its own within surrounding countryside. This location is outside the development boundaries defined by the Braintree District Local Plan 2013-2033 (LP), where Policy LPP 1 confines uses to those appropriate to the countryside. Irrespective of this, LP Policy LPP36 allows residential alterations, extensions and outbuildings to existing dwellings subject to a number of criteria.

In this case the residential alterations would comprise the conversion to annexe accommodation of a small stable building at the end of the back garden. The Council’s refusal was over this failing to demonstrate a physical and functional relationship with the host cottage and, rather than ancillary accommodation, being tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling.

The proposal includes the removal of the existing drive serving [site address] , such that both it and the proposed annex would share the second access leading to the stables, as well as the adjacent garaging and storage space. The stable building was approved in 2002 and has evidently been previously used for keeping horses, with a large paddock situated to the rear. The concrete apron at the rear of the building, presumably to facilitate the cleaning out of the stables, is not part of the red line application. Therefore, as proposed, this would not become a private rear patio for the annex, and it would just share the existing garden with the host dwelling.

The amount of accommodation provided is very small, comprising a bedroom with ensuite and a single living room with kitchenette. The Council is concerned that the annex conversion does not include the tack room, which could at some future point create a larger residential unit. However, I can only make my decision on the plans before me and this tack room would remain available as ancillary storage space.

The proposal would offer separate accommodation for both the appellant and her son, allowing them to live close to each other to better provide the mutual support required. Whilst providing independent living space, the annexe would not be entirely self-contained, continuing to share the garden, vehicular access, car parking space, garaging, laundry and storage facilities with [site address] . On this basis, the annex would share a physical and functional relationship with the host dwelling, in compliance with criterion h of LP Policy LPP36. There is no dispute over this proposal satisfying the other criteria in this policy and, furthermore, the development plan considered as a whole.

In addition to applying the standard time limit and plans compliance, I consider further conditions are necessary in the interests of certainty. These secure the single shared access and clarify the ancillary nature of the accommodation. Subject to these conditions, I conclude the appeal should succeed.