Appeal 6000990

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Conversion of stables to residential annexes (retention of) at [site address] , [site address] , Stones Green, Essex [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00955/FULHH, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawing Nos: 101, S102A and S104.

The residential annexes hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as [site address] , [site address] , Stones Green, Essex [postcode] .

The main issues in the appeal are whether or not the proposed development is ancillary to the main dwelling, whether the proposed development provides acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to internal space and the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.

The Council alleges that the residential annexes would be tantamount to self-contained independent residential units. However, the proposed development was applied for as residential annexes on a householder application form, validated by the Council.

The Council contends that limited demonstrable need has been put forward to justify the annexes. However, I have not been directed to any specific local plan policy or Supplementary Planning Document relating to the provision of annexe accommodation.

The submitted plans show four separate, independently accessed residential annexes. Three include a living/kitchen area, a separate bedroom and an en-suite; the fourth features a combined living/kitchen/sleeping area with separate en-suite facilities. They therefore have the basic facilities which could make them capable of being used independently to the main dwelling. However, this does not necessarily result in a separate or independent planning unit from the main dwelling. It is a matter of fact and degree.

The appellant intends for the annexes to be used by existing family members who reside at [address]; therefore, the residential occupation of the site would not increase. I have no reason to doubt this.

The converted stable block is located within the garden of the host property, with which it shares its use. Although the Council find the distance between the annexes and main dwelling undermines their ability to function as ancillary structures, as the annexes were created by the conversion of an existing building, this pre-determines the separation distance. In any case, the annexes are located only a short distance away from the main dwelling, linked by a hard surfaced pathway. The annexes means of access to the highway and parking provision is also provided by the main dwelling.

Furthermore, I also observed that the kitchen facilities were very limited, with no oven or hob. There would thus likely be reliance on the main dwelling for the preparation of more substantial meals. Each annex is also limited in size, clearly subordinate in scale to the main dwelling. In my view, the annexes physical and functional links to the main dwelling, are indicative of them supporting the existing household rather than facilitating independent occupation.

The Council has also raised concern regarding the location of the annexes outside of the settlement boundary, where the principle of new dwellings is not supported. However, the proposal before me is not for new dwellings. From what I have read and observed on site; I am satisfied that the proposed annexes maintain a physical and functional connection with the main dwelling such that they are ancillary to the main dwelling. Consequently, occupation of the annexes as proposed would not result in new residential dwellings in the countryside. Thus, there is no conflict with Policy SP3 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Section 1 (2021) (LP1) and Policy SPL2 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Section 2 (2022) (LP2) which set out the spatial strategy.

In the event that the annexes were functioning independently from the main dwelling as independent planning units, any material change of use would require planning permission, and the annexes would be at risk of enforcement action if such permission is not granted.

In conclusion, for the reasons above, I conclude that the proposed development would be ancillary to the main dwelling.

The size of each annexe falls significantly short of the minimum gross internal floor area for a single storey, 1 bedroom, 1 bedspace property when assessed against the [name]. However, these standards are guidelines for new dwellings. As the proposal is not for new dwellings and the annexes are intended to be used as ancillary accommodation, I am satisfied that the internal floor space is acceptable for its intended use.

In conclusion, the annexes would provide acceptable living conditions with regards to internal space. The proposal would accord with Policies SP7 of LP1 and SPL3 of LP2. Together, amongst other matters, these require new development to be well designed, meeting high standards of urban and architectural design.

The appeal site comprises a large, detached dwelling set within a spacious plot, with a large garden area to the north and west. To the east of the main dwelling is a newly constructed annexe, as well as the stable block subject of this application. The appeal site is bound by mature hedging, beyond which lies open countryside, characterised by sporadic residential development along [site address] and a farm opposite, all of which contributes to the prevailing rural character.

The Council’s main concern is that they consider the four additional annexes, in combination with the recently approved annexe1, would result in overdevelopment due to a significant intensification of residential use within the curtilage of [site address] , eroding the spacious character and rural setting. However, the proposal does not seek to increase the number of occupants at the appeal site, accommodating existing family members residing at [address]. Consequently, there would be no material increase in comings and goings over the existing situation.

There have been limited external alterations to the stable block; with the stable doors and scale of the stables being retained. The converted block is largely screened from the street scene, set behind a combination of fencing and mature hedgerow. The conversion, therefore, has no significant adverse effect on the appearance of the area. Furthermore, as the proposal is a conversion, there is no additional built form within the site, thus it does not lead to any physical overdevelopment. Even accounting for the recently approved annexe, the appeal site maintains its spacious character.

For the reasons above, the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character of the area. It would therefore accord with Policy SPL3 of LP2 which, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure new development maintains or enhances local character and relates well to its site and surroundings including in relation to its siting, height, scale and form.

As the development has commenced, there is no need to impose the standard time condition. A condition specifying the relevant plans is necessary as this provides certainty. To ensure that the annexes are not used for any other purpose, including as separate dwellings, a condition restricting their use is necessary.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR 1 Ref: 25/00954/FULHH