Appeal 6000165

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of an annexe ancillary to the main dwelling, amendments to layout and fenestration at [site address] , Romford, Havering [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P1537.24, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

I was able to see and access the building subject of this appeal during my site visit. It contained a partially fitted bathroom and a separate sink with surrounding countertop. It did not contain the front integral garage, additional side window and rear double doors as shown on the proposed plans, and it did not appear to be used for overnight accommodation. I have therefore determined this appeal as being part-retrospective in nature.

In my above decision, I have utilised the description of development from the decision notice, rather than that within the application form and in the above banner heading. This is because the main parties agreed to this description change. I have however removed reference to the application being retrospective, as this is not a form of development.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • whether the proposed annexe is a use that is part and parcel of the existing dwellinghouse use.

The appeal site (No 28) comprises a detached bungalow facing [address] and is where the appellant resides. The plot has a narrow frontage and a considerable depth, with a side access drive leading to the appeal building. There is another long outbuilding along the western side boundary rear of the main bungalow of No 28, used for the appellant’s water utilities business and for his personal storage. The appeal building is at the rear end of the plot. The surrounding area contains detached and semi-detached dwellings and outbuildings, with a business park to the rear of No 28.

The appeal building is not subordinate in scale to the main bungalow, in terms of its footprint. In this respect, it goes against the advice of the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (Adopted 2011) that outbuildings should be subordinate in scale to the existing dwelling.

However, subsequent to the Council refusing planning permission subject of this appeal, it granted a lawful development certificate (Ref: E0013.25) that confirms that the same footprint and bulk as currently proposed would not require express planning permission, if used for purposes incidental to the main bungalow of No 28.

Although this lawful development certificate does not include the bathroom facilities, integral garage and rear double doors as currently proposed, it is nonetheless a significant material consideration. This is because the appeal scheme does not include any additional footprint, height or bulk. This matter therefore amounts to a lawful fallback position that significantly weighs in favour of the current proposal.

Furthermore, the appeal building is almost entirely screened by the solid gate enclosing the side vehicular access. It is also surrounded by other outbuildings and is set significantly back from the site’s frontage with [address]. It is therefore not a discordant or excessively large or prominent structure when viewed either in the street scene or the rear garden environment.

Nor is the proposal substantially out of scale with the main bungalow of No 28. Its secluded positioning towards the rear of the site would also avoid a cramped or cluttered appearance, or any other cumulative impact having regard to the other existing development within No 28.

In conclusion, for the above reasons the appeal proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. In this respect, the scheme therefore complies with Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (HLP) (Adopted 2021) and the supporting SPD which require residential outbuildings to, amongst other things, be of high design quality and to be unobtrusively located.

The SPD also sets out that an annexe must form part of the same planning unit, sharing facilities, including access, parking and garden areas. The layout, design and physical relationship between the house and annexe are important considerations, and the annexe must demonstrate clear connections with the main dwelling. The SPD further advises that the size and scale of the accommodation to be provided should be proportionate to the main dwelling.

At the time of my site visit, the space between the main bungalow of No 18 and the appeal building was subdivided by fencing near the rear of the main bungalow and a solid vehicular access gate to its rear and side, as indicated on the proposed ground floor plan. This space is however covered by a large area of hardstanding that is also used by the appellant residing at [address]. There is also a pathway subdividing the fence rear of the main bungalow, providing an unhindered link between it and the appeal building. The existing side vehicular access therefore does not prejudice the intended use of the appeal building as an annexe.

Although the appeal building includes its own patio area adjacent its frontage, this is not enclosed, and any future enclosure can be restricted by means of planning condition. Whilst the appeal building is of similar footprint to the main bungalow and would also contain a kitchen, it would only contain one bedroom.

This building would be used partly as a habitable annexe by family members of the appellant, including children and grandchildren. Such a family use could include taking some meals together within the main bungalow. Part of the appeal building would also be used by the appellant as a garage/workshop. For the above reasons, there would be a clear physical and functional link between these buildings.

I therefore conclude that, as a matter of fact and degree, the proposed annexe is a use that is part and parcel of the existing residential use of the bungalow of No 18. In this respect, there is no conflict with Policy 7 of HLP and the SPD, the relevant requirements of which are already set out above. Thus, there is also no conflict with Policy 10 of the HLP in terms of outlook, garden size and noise and disturbance.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions against the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance, and have amended their wording, where necessary. A condition specifying time limits for the development (condition 1) is necessary in the interests of planning certainty. Condition 2 is necessary to clarify the approved plan details. Condition 3 is necessary to ensure that the appeal development remains as part and parcel of the main bungalow of No 28. This does not however require restriction of additional pedestrian or vehicular accesses into the site.

As the operative wording of the approved development includes an annexe ancillary to the main dwelling, it is not necessary to impose a condition restricting occupancy solely to immediate family members, or other form of ancillary use. Additionally, it is not necessary to impose condition restricting use of the proposal as a separate unit of residential accommodation from the main bungalow of No 28, as such use would in any event require additional planning permission from the Council. It is also not necessary to impose a condition removing permitted development rights for additional windows on the annexe building, as overlooking would be sufficiently mitigated by existing screening along the boundaries.

For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted must be commenced not later than three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the following approved plans: P0; P1; P2; P3; P4; P5.

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 further fences, gates or walls shall be erected within the site known as [site address] , Romford. ***End of Schedule***