Appeal 6000269

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of an existing outbuilding into a granny annexe at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/24/04170/FULL6, and subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

The appellant made an application for costs. This application for costs has been dealt with in a separate decision.

During the course of the appeal, the Council confirmed that the reference to Policy D4 of the London Plan (published 2021) in the Council’s decision notice was a typographical error and the reason for refusal should have referred to Policy D3 of the London Plan. I have considered the appeal on this basis.

This appeal concerns an outbuilding situated at the end of the rear garden of [site address] (No 230) in [site address] . Retrospective planning permission1 was granted in January 2018 for the construction of the outbuilding, with the largest room in the outbuilding described as ‘office / utility’ on the plans, and the 2 smaller rooms described as ‘wash room’ and ‘office / gym’. The plans showed the inclusion of a kitchen sink.

[name] 2018 planning permission was refused for a development described as, “change of use from existing outbuilding to all year round use as a [name] / used by a member of the family as personal use and enjoyment of the occupants of the house and not as a separate address”. The largest room in the outbuilding was described as ‘kitchenette / dining’, and the 2 smaller rooms were described as 1 17/05556/FULL6 ‘bathroom’ and ‘bedroom’. The plans showed the inclusion of a bath, a toilet, a bed, a cooker, and a kitchen sink.

In the subsequent appeal2 (the 2018 appeal), the Inspector mentioned that the granny annex would be furnished so that occupants could use the building independent of the host property. Additionally, the Inspector mentioned that the plans showed a single pedestrian access next to the outbuilding which would allow anyone occupying the building to come and go without using the gated access serving No 230.

The Inspector considered that a planning condition limiting the building’s occupancy to family members would prove difficult to monitor and enforce given the proposed separate entrance, and the proposed layout. The Inspector concluded that the proposed development would result in significant harm to the character of the area. The Inspector found conflict with policies that required a high quality design for alterations to residential properties that has regard to the character, pattern and grain of the area so development makes a positive contribution.

The present appeal differs from the 2018 appeal in that the submitted plans propose a shower room rather than a bathroom, and a ‘living area’ is proposed which does not contain a cooker, nor a kitchen sink (rather than a kitchenette / dining area as proposed in the 2018 appeal). The plans do not show the provision of a side entrance / gate next to the outbuilding, again in contrast to the scheme considered in the 2018 appeal. I observed on my site visit that the previously-installed side gate found close to the outbuilding had been removed.

Appeal decisions must be based on the development plan policies in force at the time of the decision. Since the 2018 appeal, the Bromley Local Plan (adopted

(Local Plan) has been adopted, and the London Plan (published 2021) has been published. I make reference to the relevant development plan policies below.

The Council are concerned that, due to its siting, size and use, the proposed development would not represent an ancillary form of accommodation to the main dwelling, and that it is capable of being severed and used as a separate dwellinghouse which would result in development out-of-character with the area. It follows that the main issue is whether the proposed development would constitute a separate dwelling from No 230.

Due to the amount of floorspace provided by the outbuilding, its siting at the end of the rear garden of No 230, and noting that a side gate close to the outbuilding was previously in place, the outbuilding is inherently capable of being used as a dwelling separate from No 230. However, that is not what is proposed. The appellant has applied for a granny annex, to be used as ancillary accommodation to No 230. This is the basis on which the appeal must be determined.

Although a bedroom is still proposed within the outbuilding, as the outbuilding would lack cooking and meal preparation facilities, the proposed development would not contain the necessary facilities required for independent day-to-day living. Moreover, to provide a safeguard that the outbuilding could not be severed 2 Appeal decision [name]/G5180/D/18/3211910 from No 230, the use of the outbuilding as ancillary accommodation to No [address] of a planning condition. The option of enforcement action would potentially be available to the Council in the event of any breach of that

As mentioned above, in contrast to the scheme considered in the 2018 appeal, the submitted plans do not show the provision of a side entrance / gate next to the outbuilding. The proposed development would accordingly not allow anyone occupying the outbuilding to come and go without using the gated access serving No 230, which was a key concern of the Inspector in the 2018 appeal. 2 separate points of entry and exit on site would not exist.

Although the outbuilding is sited at the rear of the plot, it is a short walk from No

It is not located so far from No 230 that its siting would require meals to be prepared within the outbuilding, including during the winter. Additionally, the outbuilding shares a parking area and a garden with No 230.

As such, the proposed development would comply with part a of Policy 7 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, an extension to provide space for additional family members will be expected to ensure that the extension cannot be severed from the main dwellinghouse.

Part c of Policy 7 of the Local Plan provides that, amongst other things, an extension to provide space for additional family members will be expected to ensure that access to the extension is provided and maintained through the original dwellinghouse. It can be seen that part c of Policy 7 does not preclude the existence of additional access routes to an extension, as long as the route through the original dwellinghouse is both provided and maintained. In this regard, as a separate access point to the outbuilding would not be provided on site, access to the outbuilding could only be achieved by entering No 230 itself (the original dwellinghouse), or by walking through areas intimately associated with the use of No 230, including No 230’s driveway, side passageway, rear patio, and rear garden. Hence, the proposed development would comply with part c of Policy 7.

Planning permission has already been granted for the outbuilding3, which replaced a garage previously on site. In light of this, it is difficult to see how the size and scale of the single-storey outbuilding could reasonably be a concern in planning terms, including with respect to its effect on the appearance of the area and the living conditions of nearby residents. Indeed, the Inspector in the 2018 appeal noted that there was no evidence that the building is any larger than that granted planning permission. In light of this, and as no changes are proposed to the external appearance of the outbuilding, the proposed development would comply with part b of Policy 7 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, an extension to provide space for additional family members will be expected to be in-keeping with the design and scale of the existing dwellinghouse.

Taking all of the above into account, with the appropriate planning conditions in place, and considering the lack of the necessary facilities required for independent day-to-day living, the proposed development would not result in the outbuilding comprising a self-contained unit which could potentially be severed from the main dwelling, which paragraph 2.1.67 of the Local Plan highlights can be a problem 3 17/05556/FULL6 which Policy 7 of the Local Plan seeks to address. As an outbuilding in ancillary use to No 230, it would reflect the residential character of the area.

I therefore find that the proposed development would not constitute a separate dwelling from No 230. It would comply with Policy 7 of the Local Plan, summarised above. It would comply with Policy 37 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, all development proposals, including extensions to existing buildings, will be expected to be of a high standard of design and layout.

The proposed development would comply with Policy D3 of the London Plan which provides that, among other things, development proposals should enhance local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness.

The proposed development would not set a precedent, as any future planning applications would be considered by the Council on their own merits.

I have considered the need for conditions against the advice on conditions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). The proposed internal configuration of the outbuilding differs from that currently on site. Due to this, conditions are necessary, in the interests of clarity and enforceability, setting out the timescale for the commencement of development (condition 1) and the approved plans (condition 2), respectively.

In line with my reasoning on the main issue above, a condition is necessary requiring that the outbuilding shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of No 230, to ensure that the outbuilding is not used as a separate dwellinghouse, and to protect the character of the area (condition 3).

The permitted development right under Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) would potentially allow for a side gate to be installed along the western boundary of the site, close to the outbuilding. The installation of such a gate would create a separate entry point near to the outbuilding, which the Inspector in the 2018 appeal mentioned as being a concern. Hence, a condition is necessary to remove this permitted development right, to prevent the potential creation of an independent access to the outbuilding (condition 4). As Class A of Part 2 refers to the ‘alteration’ of a fence, the removal of this permitted development right would also preclude the creation of an open gap near to the outbuilding.

I have not imposed a condition requiring removal of the internal kitchenette (with post-removal verification) since its removal on implementation of the proposed development is already mandated by the approved plans which are covered by a separate condition (condition 2). Should the Council wish to undertake a verification check for enforcement or other purposes, reference can be made to the approved plans, which show an absence of an internal kitchenette.

Moreover, requiring the kitchenette to be removed within a set period of time would bind the appellant to implementing a key part of the permission within a set period. As the kitchenette would be required to be removed in any event for the approved use as a granny annex to commence, it has not been demonstrated that such a restriction would be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. If the Council are concerned about the continuing presence of the kitchenette whether or not the outbuilding is being used as a granny annex, this would be a matter to be considered in line with established enforcement procedures, outside of this appeal, which relates solely to the proposed development for a granny annex.

As the proposed development does not include any changes to the external appearance of the outbuilding on site, a condition requiring compliance with materials in accordance with the plans is not necessary. As this appeal relates to a householder application, the biodiversity gain condition is not applicable.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan, [name] and Elevations ([name]. PDS/PR-230-01).

The outbuilding 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] .

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by virtue of Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of that Order shall be undertaken on site. End of Conditions Schedule