Appeal 6000349

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No 106), a 2-storey end-of-terrace dwelling with a front driveway, a rear garden, and an outbuilding, located in a predominantly residential area. [name] 23/0385/HD granted planning permission for the demolition of an existing garage at the site and the construction of a single-storey outbuilding to the rear of the garden at No 106.

Planning permission is now sought for the retrospective reconfiguration of the existing outbuilding, including the construction of a side dormer and all other associated alterations to facilitate its conversion into a granny annex. The present application under appeal differs from permission Ref 23/0385/HD in a number of respects, including the shape of the outbuilding, and its internal layout and facilities. In part due to the inclusion of a kitchenette, a bedroom, and a combined WC and shower room, the Council have stated that the development constitutes a self-contained residential unit rather than ancillary accommodation to No 106, leading to concerns relating to living conditions.

Therefore, the main issue is whether the development constitutes a separate dwelling from No 106, and if so, whether it provides satisfactory living conditions for its occupiers, with particular regard to internal space, private amenity space, sunlight, daylight, and outlook.

No 106 benefits from a long linear rear garden. The outbuilding is situated at the end of the garden, adjacent to an access lane found beyond the rear of the plot. As a single-storey structure, it appears subordinate to No 106. Even so, due to its depth and width, it visually dominates the rear garden.

The garden to the rear of No 106 is accessible by both the occupiers of No 106 and any person using the outbuilding. The existing garden area has not been subdivided. Nevertheless, a paved area is present in front of the outbuilding, which leads to a low wall which extends past the entrance of the outbuilding. These features provide a measure of visual separation between the garden and the outbuilding.

The outbuilding can be reached through No 106. However, it can also be reached independently of No 106, by using the path to the side of No 106 which runs from No 106’s side gate. In effect, this represents an independent access route from the road straight to the outbuilding. The outbuilding contains a kitchenette (incorporating a refrigerator, a cooker, and a sink), a bedroom, and a combined WC and shower room. Hence, the outbuilding contains all of the facilities and utilities required for core living activities, including eating and sleeping, to be carried out independently of No 106. I observed that the outbuilding also contains a washing machine. As such, although the description of development provided in the application form refers to a ‘granny annex’, in actuality the outbuilding allows for independent living to be carried out within it.

Taking all of the above into account, as a matter of fact and degree, the evidence indicates that the outbuilding likely occupies a separate planning unit from No 106. So, paragraph i.107 of the SPD1 is applicable, which provides that, amongst other things, any outbuilding that could function as a self-contained building will be considered as new homes and need to comply with housing standards including minimum floor areas and internal space standards set out for new dwellings in Table 3.1 of the London Plan (published 2021). As the word ‘could’ in paragraph i.107 indicates a possibility, not a certainty, in this case that threshold has been passed. Part C2.1 of the Housing Design Standards London Plan Guidance (published June 2023)2 also provides that, amongst other things, all new dwellings must meet the minimum space standard in Policy D6 [name](1-8) and Table 3.1 of the London Plan.

In this regard, the Council have asserted that the outbuilding does not meet the internal space standards set out in Table 3.1 (referred to in Policy D6 of the London Plan). This has not been disputed by the appellant. Aside from the paved area referred to above, which is limited in size, the outbuilding does not have its own private amenity space. Few details have been provided to demonstrate that the bedroom would receive adequate sunlight and daylight. With the door to the bedroom sited in close proximity to and directly facing the boundary fencing to the side of the plot, outlook from the bedroom is very poor. It follows that the development does not provide an acceptable quality of accommodation as an independent residential unit.

Whilst it is less likely that the outbuilding would be used as an independent residential unit due to its size, this factor does not rule this out, particularly as the outbuilding as it stands is fully capable of such usage. People are known to choose to live in substandard accommodation for any number of reasons. Thus, the appellant’s reference to a ‘proxy indicator’ does not change my findings on this

I therefore find that the development constitutes a separate dwelling from No 106 and that it does not provide satisfactory living conditions for its occupiers, with particular regard to internal space, private amenity space, sunlight, daylight, and 1 Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2023) 2 The Housing Design Standards LPG has superseded Part 2 (Quality) of the Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance outlook. It conflicts with part ii. of Policy H5 of the Local Plan3 which provides that, amongst other things, the Royal Borough will expect all new build housing developments to be consistent with the Mayor of [name].

The development conflicts with part D 7) of Policy D3 of the London Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals should deliver appropriate outlook and amenity, and with part F 1) of Policy D6 of the London Plan which provides that, amongst other things, dwellings must provide at least the gross internal floor area and built-in storage area set out in Table 3.1 of the London Plan.

Having regard to the aims of the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in the Equality Act 2010 (as amended), I acknowledge that the development would help to meet the needs of the appellant’s family member. However, it has not been demonstrated that the development is the only way that these needs could be met, or that the development represents the least harmful viable option. Furthermore, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) provides that, in general, planning is concerned with land use in the public interest4, and the outbuilding would likely remain in situ far beyond the point at which these personal circumstances cease to be material.

These other matters merit little weight in favour of the development. I therefore find that the matters advanced in support of the development, do not, either individually or collectively, outweigh the harm identified, nor the conflict with the development plan. The relevant material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, it is proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal.

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