Appeal 6000372

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alterations to an approved outbuilding to form a [name] (ancillary to the main dwelling) at [site address] , Plumstead, Greenwich [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0944/F 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 drawing nos: Location Plan, Block Plan, 25/74/1, 25/74/3, 25/74/6, 25/74/7, 25/74/9 and 25/74/11.

The materials to be used for the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building. All new works and works of making good to the retained fabric shall be finished to match the adjacent work unless otherwise stated on the approved drawings and retained for the lifetime of the development.

The boiler to be used for the annexe shall have dry NOx emissions not exceeding 40mg/kWh (0%).

The Council’s second reason for refusal refers to a lack of clarity in terms of the drawings provided, what has already been built on the appeal site and the scheme now proposed. Nevertheless, the drawings labelled ‘proposed’ clearly highlight the proposed changes to the outbuilding in red. As such, I will assess the appeal on the basis of the ’proposed’ drawings, rather than what is currently built on the site.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would form a residential annexe and whether acceptable living conditions for the future occupiers of the proposal would be provided with regard to internal living space, storage and private amenity space; and • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached dwelling and associated garden area located on [address] in a residential area. To the south is an area of woodland. During my site visit I witnessed that a single storey outbuilding had been constructed in the rear garden, in close proximity to the rear boundary fence. The outbuilding reflected the structure shown on the drawings identified as ‘approved’. I only witnessed windows in the front elevation of the outbuilding. The internal space was also laid out in line with those drawings with two main rooms and a shower room and separate toilet. The building was empty at the time of my site visit.

The Council has confirmed that an outbuilding of the same footprint, scale and structure as what is now identified as ‘proposed’ was granted under a previous application, but the use considered at that time was for a gym/studio and home office rather than a residential annexe. I agree with the Council that the existing outbuilding appears subservient to the host dwelling, given its limited height and footprint and due to its position in the rear garden.

The proposal seeks to add two rooflights and three windows to the existing single storey outbuilding, the provision of a small kitchen area to one of the main rooms along with the use of the other main room as a bedroom. These alterations are proposed in order to utilise the outbuilding as a residential annexe.

The Council contend that the proposal would amount to an independent residential unit rather than an annexe due to the provision of a kitchen area, bedroom and bathroom and due to the fact, it could be accessed from the side access road, independently of the main dwelling.

I accept that there would be facilities present that would enable independent living. Nonetheless, the main access into the annexe would be from the patio doors that open out into the garden area which would be shared with the host dwelling. The rear door into the host dwelling, also provides access out into the same garden space. There is no evidence before me that the subdivision of the garden is proposed and as such, I find that the garden would be a shared facility serving both the host dwelling and the annexe.

The location of the outbuilding within the rear garden along with the relatively limited separation distance between the rear elevation of the host dwelling and the front elevation of the annexe would demonstrate a clear connection leading to frequent interactions and comings and goings between the occupants of both.

Whilst the annexe could be accessed by foot and vehicle through an opening along the side boundary from the side access road, this opportunity already exists for those occupying the host dwelling. [name] noted the hardstanding in the rear garden area during my site visit, the proposed drawings do not identify this area for parking. The two parking spaces at the front of the host dwelling are identified as being retained to serve the planning unit.

I therefore find that given the description of development proposed is clearly for an annexe, a new independent residential unit has not been applied for and is therefore not before me to assess. Based on my assessment above, I find that the proposed development would form part and parcel of the established residential use of the host dwelling and would not form an independent dwelling in its own right. If the outbuilding is not altered 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.

Part of the Council’s first reason for refusal relates to the standard of living conditions that would be provided for future occupants. The Council refers to the Royal Borough Greenwich Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document Adopted October 2023 (SPD) which whilst not part of the development plan, does form a material consideration. Paragraph i.107 of the SPD states that 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 in the London Plan 2021 (Table 3.1).

However, as stated above, I find that the proposal would form part and parcel of the established residential use of the host dwelling and would not form a new independent dwelling in its own right and therefore the space requirements for new dwellings would not in my view be specifically applicable in this case.

Nevertheless, whilst the internal layout of the annexe would be fairly limited in size, the bedroom would be large enough for two people. Whilst there is no specific area identified for storage, the occupants could share storage space with the occupants of the host dwelling, given the nature of the use proposed. The existing shower room and separate toilet would be acceptable, and I find that the living space, including the small kitchen area would provide sufficient facilities suitable for its intended purpose. The future occupants would share the same private amenity space as those occupying the host dwelling, which would remain a suitable size, in keeping with other rear gardens in the surrounding area.

I therefore find that the proposed annexe would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, in terms of internal living space, storage and private amenity space. Consequently, I do not find that the proposal would conflict with Policy D3 of The London Plan March 2021 (TLP), which seeks, amongst other things, that developments provide an appropriate level of amenity, including the provision of comfortable indoor and outdoor environments.

As stated above, I have considered the guidance set out in the SPD, but I have found that the criteria identified at paragraph i.107 would not be directly applicable in the specific circumstances of this case, given the purpose of the building as an annexe is clearly identified. The Council also refers to Policy D6 of TLP and Policy H5 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with [name] 30th July 2014 (CS) along with the Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance: London Plan 2016 in its first reason for refusal. However, these policies and supplementary planning guidance refer to the design of new housing and I am not referred to any specific requirements for residential annexes. They are therefore not directly applicable to the case before me.

Taking the proposal as identified on the ‘proposed’ drawings, it is clear where the proposed windows and rooflights would be located in the building. Given the single storey nature of the outbuilding, the presence of existing boundary treatments and the limited number of windows and rooflights proposed, I do not find that the proposal would result in any significant overlooking of neighbouring properties. As such there would be no unacceptable harmful effects on the privacy enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring or nearby dwellings.

The proposed annexe use would be within the confines of the existing private rear garden space of the host dwelling. The annexe would be relatively small being suitable for only 1 or 2 persons. As such, I am satisfied that any noise and disturbance would not be excessive or unduly harmful to the occupiers of neighbouring or nearby dwellings.

I therefore find that the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring or nearby dwellings. Consequently, the proposal would comply with Policy D3 of TLP and Policy DH(b) of the CS, which seek, amongst other things, that developments deliver appropriate amenity to adjacent occupiers. For the same reasons I find that the proposal would be in accordance with one of the overarching aims of the SPD, which is that developments should ensure the amenity of residents and provide adequate privacy.

Policies DH2 and DH(a) of the CS are referred to by the Council in its second reason for refusal, nevertheless, these policies relate to tall buildings and residential extensions and are therefore not relevant to the consideration of this case.

I do not find that the previous use of the host dwelling as a rental property is relevant to the consideration of this case. As stated above the proposal is for an annexe, not for a separate residential unit that could be rented out. I note concerns about the additional use of the side access road and that it needs to be kept clear in order to allow emergency services access to the woods and to allow access to the gardens located on either side. The parking area is shown on the proposed site plan as being retained to the front of the host dwelling. There is no compelling evidence before me that suggests that the use of the outbuilding as an annexe would result in the side access road being blocked by vehicles.

The Council has suggested conditions in the event of the appeal being allowed. I have considered these in line with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance.

Whilst the outbuilding is present, works required to change the use of the outbuilding to an annexe as identified on the proposed drawings have not been carried out. As such, I have imposed the standard conditions relating to the time period in which to commence the development and the list identifying the approved plans. I have attached a condition requiring that the external materials match the existing when the works to install the windows and rooflights are carried out in order to ensure a satisfactory appearance. The standard of boiler should be required by condition in the interests of air quality.

I have not imposed conditions relating to the provision of cycle parking spaces or refuse and recycling storage and collection arrangements, given that the proposal is for an annexe which would be part and parcel of the established residential use of the host dwelling and not a new dwelling. I do not find it reasonable to require water efficiency measures through the construction of the building given it has already been built out.

The Council has suggested that permitted development rights should be withdrawn in relation to the building so that the impact of any future changes can be assessed. I have not been provided with any significant justification for this condition, nor has any evidence been provided which details why the limitations imposed by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) would not be sufficient to avoid any significant harm in this case. I have therefore not imposed this condition, in accordance with paragraph 55 of the Framework which is clear that permitted development rights should not be withdrawn unless there is clear justification to do so.

[name] have found that the description of development proposed is clearly for a residential annexe use and that any change to this would require a separate grant of planning permission, I agree with the Council that a condition restricting the use as an annexe would not be reasonable or necessary in this case.

For the above reasons, the proposal accords with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.