Appeal 3361421

The appeal is allowed, and permission is granted for a domestic extension and garage conversion to create a residential annexe for [site address] at [site address] , [address], [name], Tewkesbury [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/24/00916/HP, dated 13 May 2024, subject to the attached schedule of conditions.

With the agreement of the main parties, the description of the application has been amended to provide clarity as to the purpose of the development.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would amount to an unacceptable independent dwelling; and • the effect of the proposal on archaeological remains.

The proposal is for the adaptation and extension of the existing outbuilding adjacent to [site address] , a good-sized detached house set in a large plot within the Bredon’s Norton Conservation Area (CA) just south of the [name] listed church. The outbuilding comprises a double garage with storage on the ground floor with a small two-bedroom flat above. This was granted planning permission in 19791 with a restriction limiting its use to staff accommodation 1 [name]/1846/79 ancillary to the main house. A further planning permission was granted for conversion of the ground floor to annexe accommodation in 20062 but this does not seem to have been fully implemented.

The proposal is to extend and convert the whole outbuilding to form three-bedroom annexe accommodation for occupation in association with [site address] , initially by family members to provide care when necessary for the occupiers of the main house.

The loss of the double garage is acceptable as there is ample space within the overall plot to provide hardstanding for two further cars. Following the receipt of amended plans, the proposed extension to the outbuilding is also acceptable to the Council given its discreet position to the rear, its subservience in scale, height and massing and its high-quality design that integrates effectively with both the outbuilding and host dwelling and utilises high quality materials.

The Council’s primary concern is that the converted and extended outbuilding would provide relatively large and entirely self-contained accommodation that would have no real dependence on the host dwelling and could be occupied entirely independently of it. However, the existing two-bedroom flat above the garage is similarly self-contained, albeit smaller, and establishes the principle of ancillary accommodation at the site. The physical relationship of ancillary accommodation to main dwelling is also already established, with a narrow gap between the two buildings and separate entrances. The current proposal just increases its size, which is not harmful in itself. As explained above, there are no objections to the physical changes proposed.

Whilst the ancillary accommodation would be generous internally, in practical terms the close and connected physical relationship of the host building and outbuilding, if and when converted and extended, would require its occupation as annexe accommodation to [site address] . The severance of the two buildings into two separate ownerships with a physical boundary between the two would result in an unduly small plot for the outbuilding in conflict with the character and appearance of this part of the CA with its distinctive character of spacious plots. The size of the rear garden of the outbuilding would also be unduly small to be commensurate with the needs of a three-bedroom dwelling. To address these valid concerns, the appellant accepts the need for a condition precluding independent use or severance of the two buildings. Permission would not be acceptable without this condition. Amendment of the description of the development also makes this restriction explicit.

For these reasons the proposed conversion and extension would not amount to an unacceptable independent dwelling and can be allowed to go ahead. The proposal would not conflict with Policy SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 (the SWDP) which requires development to be of high design quality, to integrate effectively with its surroundings and to complement the character of the area. Whilst the proposal would conflict with paragraphs 8.3.26 and 8.3.29 of the [name] 2018 that annexe proposals should demonstrate dependency and be capable of use in future as part of the main dwelling, the relationship between the outbuilding flat and main dwelling is already established in this case. 2 [name]/06/02141/CU

The application has not addressed the potential for archaeological remains on the site given that the plot may have formed part of the medieval cemetery associated with the church to the north. The Council’s archaeological advisor seeks a trench evaluation of the site prior to determination of the application. However, there is no evidence that the graveyard was previously larger, that construction of the existing outbuilding disturbed any remains nor the recent rear extension to the main dwelling which has a similar relationship to the adjacent churchyard. No archaeological conditions were imposed on that permission3. In this case a requirement to allow archaeological supervision of excavation works would be proportionate to the likelihood of remains being found on the site. This would be sufficient to satisfy [name] 6 and 24 which seek to conserve heritage assets including archaeology and require investigation and recording proportionate to the asset’s significance.

Subject to suitable conditions, the proposal would provide high quality ancillary accommodation for [site address] without causing harm to the character and appearance of this part of the CA or the archaeology of the site.

The Council put forward a number of conditions should the appeal be allowed and these have been assessed against the relevant tests and amended where necessary. In addition to the standard implementation time limit the approved plans should be defined in the interests of certainty. Notwithstanding the information on the approved plans, given the location in the CA it is necessary to require prior approval of the materials to be used although the level of detail sought by the Council is excessive and has been reduced. As explained above, a condition is necessary to allow archaeological supervision of excavation works. A condition is necessary to ensure the building is used as annexe accommodation only and not sold separately as put forward by the appellant. Conditions are also required to support bat/bird nesting in the interests of ecology and the implementation of water management to minimise flood risk. Finally, although opposed by the appellant, a condition is necessary to remove permitted development rights given the sensitive nature of the site within the CA and the succession of incremental additions to the property that have been made over the years.

Having regard to the above the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 3 [name]/22/01221/HP

Unless where required or allowed by other conditions attached to this permission, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the information (including details of the proposed materials) provided on the application form and the following plans/drawings/documents: Location Plan Drg no. S2500 - [name] no. S2501 – [name] and [name] no. 1431/1B – [name] and Elevations [name] dated 8-11-24 Drg no. 1431/2B – Site Plan as Proposed [name] dated 15-11-24 Drg no. 1431/3 – Site Plan as Existing

No development above ground level shall take place until full details/samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall then be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details/samples.

The developer shall give at least 14 days’ written notice to the local planning authority of any ground excavation works at the site and shall afford access at reasonable times to any archaeologist nominated by the local planning authority to observe the excavations and record features of interest and any finds. Should no archaeologist be nominated but any features or finds be discovered during excavation works those works shall cease and shall not recommence until the local planning authority has been notified in writing and given 14 days to arrange for an archaeologist to attend.

The development 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] . The development shall not be used as an independent self-contained dwelling separate from the dwelling known as [site address] . The annexe shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of as a unit independently of [site address] .

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by virtue of Schedule 2 Part 1 Class A - E of the Order shall be undertaken without the submission and approval of a planning application.

No development above ground level shall take place until details of a bat roosting feature and/or bird nesting box have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details to be submitted shall include an implementation timetable. The feature(s) shall then be provided in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with the approved timetable.

Prior to the first use/occupation of the development hereby permitted, the details set out in the submitted [name] shall be fully implemented and shall remain at all times thereafter.