Appeal 6000644

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the immediate street scene; and • Whether the development represents a residential annexe given its nature, and its relationship with the existing dwelling.

The appeal property is a modern, two storey detached dwelling set back from [site address] , with a double garage to the front of the property. Its sits within a group of modern dwellings to the east side of [site address] , which are set back from the road.

The existing garage is perpendicular to both the road and house. The proposal involves the extension of the garage, bringing it up to the main house and closer to the front boundary of the appeal site. A double pitched roof containing the proposed residential annexe would run along its entire length, with a ridgeline slightly above that of the current roof.

In long and medium distance views along [site address] from the south, the proposal would largely be screened from view by [address]. However, being closer to the front boundary, the development would be prominent in immediate views from the south.

From the north, the development would be visible in views along [site address] , in particular the large expanse of its roof slope on its north elevation which would be visible over the intervening boundary hedges and fences. Existing young trees, in front garden areas along the road, would not adequately screen or soften the proposal and in any case such features are not permanent and may change seasonally and over time.

The location of the existing garage, to the front of the House, is an anomaly within the group of buildings of which the appeal site forms with its neighbours. The increased proximity of the development to the front site boundary would add to its prominence in the street scene. Consequently, the proposed development would be a prominent and visually obtrusive addition to the appeal site and to the street scene.

For these reasons, the proposed development would conflict with Policy CP37 of the Vale of White Horse District Council Local Plan 2031 Part 1, 2016, which seeks to ensure that development responds positively to the site and its surroundings. It would also conflict with the [name] and Vale of [name] Supplementary Planning Document, 2022 (the SPD), which seeks to deliver high quality design and advises that any garage or outbuilding should not compete with the main dwelling.

However, I find no conflict with paragraph 140 of the Framework which seeks to ensure the quality of approved development is not materially diminished ‘between permission and completion’ and is not applicable to subsequent development.

The proposed development would have an internal arrangement comprising of a kitchen, lounge/dining room, bedroom, and a bathroom. It would be accessed independently to [site address] , via an external staircase facing [site address] .

Although modest in scale, the resultant living accommodation would be self-contained and any future occupant would not be reliant on the main dwelling for aspects of day to day living, for example cooking or bathroom facilities.

It is intended that the annexe would be occupied by one family member and the size of accommodation proposed would appear to be appropriate to meet the stated purpose: enabling them to live semi-independently to the occupants of the main house whilst being in close proximity to family, and therefore in this instance, there would be a strong functional relationship between the existing dwelling and annexe.

The SPD does not require annexes to be physically linked to the main dwelling, although it does advise that conversion of an existing outbuilding would not be acceptable as it would be considered equal to the creation of a new dwelling. However, if a material change of use were to occur in the future to create an independent dwelling, a separate grant of planning permission would be required, and the building would be at risk of enforcement action if such permission was not granted.

Accordingly, the proposal would represent a residential annexe given its nature and relationship with the existing dwelling, and therefore I find no conflict with Policy DP4 of the Vale of White Horse District Council Local Plan 2031 Part 2, 2019 (the Local Plan), which seeks to ensure that there is a strong functional relationship between the existing dwelling and the proposed annexe and it is appropriate in size to meet its stated purpose.

I acknowledge the personal circumstances raised by the appellant; however, I am mindful of the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) in general that planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. It is highly probable that the proposed development would endure long after these personal circumstances cease to be relevant and therefore this is a matter to which I ascribe limited weight. As such, this does not amount to a material consideration sufficient to outweigh the harm I have found to the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings.

No objections were received in response to the application. However, this is not a factor which weighs in favour of allowing the appeal and does not diminish the harm that I have found above.

[name] have found no conflict with Policy DP4 of the Local Plan, there would be harm to the character and appearance of the appeal site and its immediate surroundings.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.