Appeal 3369158

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for new link to attach existing studio outbuilding to house (retrospective) and new annexe at 2 [name], North Green, [site address] , Norfolk [postcode] . The permission is granted in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 2025/1059, dated 31 March 2025, 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 the following approved plans: 200-B (proposed plan), 201 (house plan), 202 (house elevations), 204-C (annexe plan), 205-B (annexe elevations), 206-A (annexe views) and 207 (annexe sections).

The living accommodation hereby approved shall be ancillary to the use of the main dwelling, known as 2 [name], North Green, [site address] , Norfolk [postcode] , and shall not be occupied as a separate and unassociated unit of accommodation.

As the link to attach the studio to the house has been built, I have dealt with the appeal on the basis that it involves an application for part retrospective planning permission.

The original description of development is provided in a more succinct form in the decision notice. Therefore, the above description reflects this amended description.

The main issue is whether the proposed annexe would be an appropriate form of development in this location.

The appeal property is a semi-detached cottage located in an open rural setting with farm buildings opposite.

Policy DM3.7 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development [name] (2015) concerns residential annexes. It states that such proposals will be considered favourably provided that the annexe is designed so that it can continue to be used as part of the main dwelling, without creating an independent dwelling unit in future.

The supporting text explains that to meet the policy’s requirements with regard to design, the main and annexe accommodation should be directly connected by an internal link or otherwise have a close spatial relationship with shared facilities and space. In addition, it explains that unduly large or detached annexes can over time result in pressure for them to be severed and let separately from the main dwelling.

The proposed annexe would be located within the self-contained residential curtilage and would provide a home office and guest accommodation, with the principal kitchen and dining areas in the main dwelling. In addition, it would share services, utilities and vehicular access with the main dwelling. Given these facts, while there would be a substantive degree of separation between the two buildings, the annexe would clearly have a functional dependency on the main dwelling and in this regard would be part and parcel of the established residential use.

The proposed building would have a ground floor only, but it would be one and half storeys in height with a substantive footprint, particularly in comparison with the relatively modest scale of the main dwelling. I note that in this case concerns are not raised by the Council about the effect of the building on the character and appearance of the area due to its size or location. Instead, the principal issue is that a building of this size in this location is considered to be tantamount to a new dwelling.

However, the proposal before me is for an annexe, not a separate dwelling, and I have found that the building would function as such, particularly due to the facilities and services shared with the main dwelling. If the building is not built or used as proposed, or if there is a material change of use in the future to create a separate dwelling, then a separate grant of planning permission would be required, and the building would be at risk of enforcement action if such permission is not granted.

Accordingly, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposed annexe would be an appropriate form of development in this location and, therefore, there is no conflict with Policy DM3.7 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development [name], as described.

The link that has been built between the main dwelling and studio outbuilding to the rear is a modestly-sized and discreet addition to the property.

I have had regard to the representations made by interested parties. While the proposed annexe would be a relatively large building of contemporary design and materials, it would be positioned in a large residential curtilage and well set back from the road frontage with intervening vegetation. Consequently, it would not be prominent and so there would be no material harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. I have had regard to the existence of other outbuildings on the site in reaching this finding.

With regard to concerns that this proposal could set a precedent for further development, I am mindful of the principle that development proposals must be considered on their individual merits. I have found above that no unacceptable harm would result from the current proposal. Any future development proposals would need to be similarly considered on their merits against policies and circumstances pertaining at the time. However, current concerns about such proposals coming forward are not of sufficient weight to lead to a different overall conclusion in this case.

There is no evidential basis to suggest that a functional water supply cannot be provided to the new building or that it will not meet requisite environmental standards. The alleged status of the appellant’s company cannot have a bearing on this appeal, which is concerned only with the planning merits of the proposal. Similarly, the fact that the link development may not be fully complete is not directly relevant.

Concerns are also raised about overlooking and loss of privacy to the adjoining property. However, the windows facing this property would be side windows at a low level with an intervening boundary fence. As such, there would be no loss of privacy. [name] have had full regard to all the matters raised, for the above reasons, they do not lead me to reach a different conclusion.

For the reasons given above it is concluded that the appeal should succeed.

Of the Council’s suggested conditions I have imposed the standard time condition and, to ensure the proper implementation of the proposal, one requiring development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. I accept that, for the avoidance of doubt, a condition is necessary to require the use of the annexe to be tied to the use of the main house and for it not to be occupied as a separate unit of accommodation.