Appeal 6000894

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a replacement building to form family annexe adjacent to [name], [site address] , Linford, Essex [postcode] in accordance with the application Ref 25/00777/CV, without compliance with condition number 11 previously imposed on planning permission Ref 13/00444/FUL dated 11th June 2013, subject to the condition set out below:

Notwithstanding the information on the approved plans there shall be no roof lights on the east elevation of the building.

Planning permission was granted for a replacement building intended to serve as a family annexe adjacent to [name]. The permission included a condition designed to prevent the annexe from being sold, leased, or occupied in any way that would subdivide the application site. The Council’s position is that this condition ties the annexe to the main farmhouse, and that removing it would sever that link.

The appellant, however, argues that the condition is unenforceable because it refers to the wrong title number. They further assert that the term “annexe” in the description of development has no meaningful planning effect unless it identifies which dwelling the annexe is for or attached to. On this basis, it is claimed that the permission does not make clear which dwelling the annexe relates to.

Through this appeal, the appellant seeks to remove the condition that it is alleged ties the annexe to the farmhouse. It is therefore necessary to consider Reid v Secretary of State for [name], Housing and Communities (“Reid”), in which the Court held that “when a condition is removed, the operative part of the permission remains intact, albeit in an unconditioned way.”

In determining whether the operative part of the permission remains effective, it is important to understand the ordinary meaning of “annexe”. The Oxford Dictionary defines an annexe as “a subsidiary building joined to or associated with another (usually larger or more important) building, typically in order to provide additional space or accommodation.” Notably, this definition does not require identification of a specific host dwelling. Here, the description of development and the approved plans (MR01 and MR03B) make clear that the structure is intended to be subsidiary to the listed farmhouse. As such, the principles established in Reid apply, and the removal of the condition would not undermine or alter the building’s status as an annex.

Whether the occupation of the annexe by individuals unconnected with [name] amounts to a material change of use is a separate planning control matter, and one that would fall to the Local Planning Authority to determine.

The main issues are therefore whether the condition is reasonable or necessary to protect the living conditions of future occupants of the annexe, with regard to the provision of private amenity space, car parking, secure cycle parking and waste storage.

The red outline of the appeal site encloses only the annexe and does not include any surrounding land. The area outlined in blue, which is controlled by the appellant, falls within the application site outline of planning permission 13/00444/FUL.

Policy PMD2 of the [name] and Policies for Management of Development (as amended) 2015 (Local Plan), requires proposals to provide adequate private amenity space in line with the Council’s adopted standards. The building was approved as an annexe under permission 13/00444/FUL, and during my visit I observed that it benefits from a garden area within the blue outlined land under the appellant’s control, which lies inside the original red line boundary. As there are no minimum quantitative standards for ancillary accommodation, given the above the development is considered to provide sufficient private amenity space.

For the above reasons, the development would protect the living conditions of future occupants of the annexe with regard to the provision of private amenity space. It therefore accords with Policies PMD1 and PMD2 of the Local Plan in respect of amenity space provision.

Policy PMD8 of the Local Plan requires all development to comply with car‐parking standards set out in the Layout and Standards Supplementary Planning Document. The Council considers that two parking spaces are required, but this appears to be based on the annexe being treated as an independent dwelling. However, the operative part of the original permission refers to an annexe, and the development must therefore be assessed on that basis.

While the Council considers that there are conflicting land use pressures in the vicinity of the annexe, it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the wider site cannot deliver adequate parking, cycle storage or waste facilities. However, the blue‐outlined land within the appellant’s ownership is substantial, falls within the original red‐line boundary, and offers large parking areas together with sufficient land for cycle and waste storage. The wider site is therefore capable of supporting the operational requirements of the ancillary accommodation.

For the above reasons, the development would protect the living conditions of future occupants of the annexe with regard to car parking, cycle parking and waste storage. It would therefore accord with the objectives of Policies PMD1 and PMD8 of the Local Plan, insofar as they require proposals to provide adequate parking and avoid unacceptable impacts on the amenity of future occupiers.

This appeal follows a previously approved scheme 13/00444/FUL. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that the conditions attached to the original permission that continue to have effect should be re-stated in the interests of clarity.

The remaining conditions that are either pre commencement or seeking to control the materials and finish of the development or its electrical telephone services do not need to be reimposed. This is due to the annexe being complete and these conditions no longer having an effect.

Condition eight, which prevents the installation of roof lights in the east elevation to protect the appearance of the annexe and the setting of nearby listed buildings, is reimposed as it remains necessary and relevant to the development.

For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed.