Appeal 6000952

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties regarding noise, disturbance and odour.

[address] was observed to be within a relatively quiet suburban environment. The appeal site comprises a semi-detached dwelling with garage and storage building (the outbuilding) at the end of what is a relatively short and narrow garden, characteristic of other properties in the immediate surroundings. The outbuilding is single storey and extends to the full width of the plot. It is currently accessed from either the lane to the rear through a garage door or from the front via the dwelling’s side pedestrian gate and rear garden.

The proposal is for the conversion of the outbuilding to an annexe to provide accommodation for the appellant’s brother, who would reside there for a limited time during the year due to travelling. [name] have no reason to doubt that this would be the case, there is no example of a mechanism before me, such as a planning condition, to demonstrate how the use of the annexe could be limited in terms of the amount of use. In the absence of detail, I am not convinced that such a condition would be enforceable in-line with the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. I have therefore based my decision on the potential for the annexe to be permanently occupied as a worst-case scenario.

The annexe would comprise a room including sleeping, living and kitchen space, and a separate shower room. Part of the building would be retained for storage and accessed externally, and the rear access from the lane would be removed.

Policy LP7 of the Redbridge Local Plan (2018) (LP) makes it clear that the Council will resist the use of outbuildings ordinarily used for ancillary purposes within a dwelling curtilage or garden as separate sleeping and living accommodation.

LP Policy LP26, amongst other things, seeks good design by requiring development to respect local character and make positive contributions to its context and location, and does not result in an adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in relation to noise.

Although a separate dwelling is not intended in this case, and the space afforded to the provision of additional accommodation would be modest, the proposal would provide both living and sleeping space within a building that has been used for ancillary purposes and is physically separate from the main dwelling. It would therefore be inherently contrary to LP Policy LP7, which seeks to resist such proposals within dwelling curtilages and gardens.

[name] accept that the appellant’s brother would also use space within the main dwelling given the family connection, the annexe would provide sufficient facilities to enable independent living, wholly separate from the main dwelling. Furthermore, despite the proposed removal of the rear access, the annexe would be accessed from [address] via the side pedestrian gate and the rear garden, without the need to go through the main dwelling.

Despite the anticipated single person occupancy and only minor alterations to the external appearance of the building, the proposed annexe would create significant comings and goings, intensifying activity to the rear of the main dwelling beyond what would normally be experienced. The use of the building for a level of accommodation that could amount to a separate self-contained dwelling and that would not be part and parcel of the main dwelling would fail to respect the prevailing character and pattern of development in the area, which is reinforced by semi-detached dwellings with ancillary outbuildings to the rear.

The appellant asserts that this proposal is different from that referenced by the Council on [address] North (ARN), which was dismissed at appeal1. I note that the ARN proposal was for the conversion of an outbuilding to annexe accommodation within existing rear garden space, as is proposed in this case, which would only be accessible through the front entrances to the appeal buildings. However, I am conscious that the associated plans are not before me to enable me to fully understand whether there are clear similarities between the two appeals. Nevertheless, I have decided this appeal on its own planning merits, as I am required to do so.

For the above reasons, I find that the proposed development would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area, contrary to [name] LP7 and LP26. 1 [name]/W5780/24/3343862.

Neighbouring residents should expect quiet conditions to enable them to enjoy their private spaces, particularly their rear gardens. As previously discussed, the proposed annexe would intensify the use of what is currently an ancillary outbuilding set within the rear garden of the main dwelling. The associated increase in activity and the ability to use the building as a separate dwelling would create additional noise from comings and goings, and odour from cooking for example, the effects of which would inevitably be exacerbated by the constrained nature of the rear gardens and the close proximity that neighbouring residents find themselves living within.

For the above reasons, I find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residents regarding noise, disturbance and odour, contrary to LP Policy LP26.

I note that no objections have been received from neighbours. However, a lack of objections does not equate to a lack of harm and accordingly I have determined this appeal on its planning merits.

The National Annexe Planning Consultancy (NAPC) has expressed support for the proposal given that it aligns with their national position in terms of, amongst other things, the use of an existing residential plot and the provision of flexible living arrangements. [name] acknowledge these benefits, they do not outweigh the harm I have found. Furthermore, the NAPC asserts that the proposal would support multi-generational living and would offer a sustainable response to care pressures. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that either would be achieved in this case.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.