Appeal 6000686

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are • Whether the annexe would have a suitable relationship with the host dwelling. • Whether acceptable living conditions would be provided for the occupants.

The appeal site is a mid-terraced dwelling set back from the main road accessed via a slip road from [address] to the east of the site. It is located within a residential area. The existing single-storey outbuilding is located at the far end of the garden positioned along the site boundaries. The building appeared to have already been upgraded with internal walls and tiled floor, internally comprising a single large room with small shower room located to the rear.

The garden area between the rear of the host dwelling and the outbuilding is mainly lawn though there is an existing covered seating area located just to the front of one half of the outbuilding. The rear garden area is surrounded on all sides by the rear gardens of adjoining residential properties.

There is a narrow strip of land that runs to the south of the adjoining property, No. 82b, that gives pedestrian access to the rear of the appeal site and the outbuilding from the [address] / [address] frontage, just to the south-east of that property. That strip of land is not owned by the appellant, but notice has been served on a number of adjoining properties. It appears that the building has been previously occupied for residential purposes, allegedly unrelated to the host dwelling, though at the time of my site visit it was being used for storage.

The Council has assessed the proposal on the basis that access to the proposed annexe would be via the above strip of land though it is not included within the red edged site, being identified as blue land. There is nothing within the application which suggests that this path would be the sole means of access, and, through this appeal, it is clarified that access would in fact be through the existing house and that the annexe occupants would share other facilities within the host property. Whilst details of the proposed occupants are not provided this seems unnecessary as its future use could be controlled by a suitably worded condition.

The existing garden area would be adequate to be shared between the occupants of the existing house and the proposed annexe; there is no proposal to divide it or put up any boundaries, nor were there any such features on site at the time of my site visit. The submitted plans show that there would be a clear connection and shared use of the area, appropriate to its ancillary use, and should it be considered necessary, the erection of further boundary features could be controlled through the imposition of a further condition.

[name] agree that the use of the proposed annexe as an independent residential unit would not be acceptable given the close relationship with the host dwelling, lack of suitable separate garden and access and location relative to adjoining properties, that is not what is being sought through this appeal, and, as noted above, appropriate conditions could be imposed to prevent any independent occupation and access to ensure such use would be prevented.

Overall, in these circumstances, I find that the relationship with the host dwelling would be suitable and its occupation as an annexe ancillary to the host dwelling would be appropriate. In this respect it would accord with Policies 7 and 26 of the London Borough of Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021) (LP) and Policies D1 and D4 of The London Plan 2021 which seek high quality design that provides for development that is appropriate within and complements the character of an area. I agree with the appellant that LP Policy 10 is not relevant as that deals with new residential development in gardens and backland rather than residential annexes.

The proposal would also satisfy the guidance in the Council’s Residential Extensions and [name] 2011 (SPD) which allows for the conversion of outbuildings to annexes provided they are part of the same planning unit and share facilities demonstrating a clear connection with the main dwelling.

As noted above there would be an adequate shared garden area for occupants of the host dwelling and the proposed annexe. However, the outbuilding is currently only served by one small window to the front elevation which is, to a great extent, overshadowed by the existing garden building located close to the front of the outbuilding allowing only a minimal level of light. This would provide an unacceptable internal living environment for residential occupation. As it is unclear if this could be rectified in a practical way so as to ensure a suitable level of light and internal living environment is provided, it would not be appropriate to seek this through the imposition of a condition.

The Council’s reason for refusal also refers to noise and disturbance from the ‘adjacent business’. It is unclear what this relates to as it is not referred to in the officer report, nor did I see any evidence of such when on the site visit. In any event, the appeal site is located in a predominantly residential area where existing residential properties would have a similar relationship.

In terms of the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties, whilst the annexe would be located close to the rear gardens of a number of nearby properties, the likely level of occupancy would not result in any significant change that might result in unacceptable harm.

Overall, I find that the proposal would not provide acceptable living conditions for the proposed occupants. It would thus fail to comply with LP Policy 7 which seeks high quality living environments and that the amenity of future residents is not adversely affected through, amongst other things, lack of suitable levels of sunlight and daylight.

There would also be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks well designed places with a high standard of amenity for future users.

Overall, whilst the proposed granny annexe would have an acceptable relationship with the host dwelling, the living conditions provided would not be adequate or acceptable. The benefits associated with the provision of the annexe would not outweigh these harms.

I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.