Appeal 6001006

The appeal is dismissed.

The first reason for refusal on the decision notice refers to a condition imposed on a previous planning permission1. However, the planning application subject of this appeal was not made against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. The description provided on the application form and used in the Council’s decision notice, and for notification purposes, is as set out in the banner heading above, for a change of use of an annex to a dwelling. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

Evidence submitted by both main parties indicates that the annex is already in use as a dwelling. I am therefore considering this appeal retrospectively.

The main issues are: • The effect of the development on the living conditions of occupants of both the annex and [address] (No.10), with particular regard to overlooking and noise and disturbance; • The effect of the development on the living conditions of occupants of the annex, with particular regard to outlook and internal space; and, • Whether the site is a suitable location for housing, with particular regard to the local development plan spatial strategy. 1 Condition 4 of planning permission [name]: 123819

The existing detached annex building is located within the rear garden of No.10. Planning permission was granted in 2009 for the change of use of the annex to a ‘self-contained residence for carer, including roof lift’2. A condition was imposed on this permission that restricted occupation of the annex to purposes ancillary to the residential use of the host dwelling, No.10. However, evidence indicates that the annex has subsequently been used as a separate, independent dwelling.

The annex comprises one bedroom, a bathroom and separate living, dining, kitchen and utility rooms. A door in the utility room on the east elevation of the annex provides access to an enclosed, modest-sized garden separated from the remainder of the main garden of No.[address] by tall solid timber fences, a hedge, and a double detached garage. However, two windows on the south elevation of the annex open directly onto the garden of No.10. These windows directly face ground floor windows and a rear door at No.[address] distance, with no separating boundary treatment.

Moreover, patio doors in the living area on the west elevation of the annex provide access to a small, paved area enclosed by a tall timber mesh fence and gate that adjoins and provides access to the rear garden of No.10. Residents of No.10 are able to clearly see any occupants of the annex that may be using this outdoor space, resulting in a loss of privacy. Similarly, occupants of the annex using this space overlook the main garden area of No.10. Thus, the living conditions of both properties are significantly harmed as a result of overlooking.

Given the two windows in the south elevation of the annex are mostly fitted with obscure film, I have no concerns with regards to overlooking towards or from these windows. However, I do have concerns about the proximity of these windows to the rear elevation and garden of No.10.

This is because previous occupation of the annex by persons linked to the host dwelling would have been more likely to result in its occupants undertaking day-to-day activities together as a household and to share the facilities with residents of No.10 from time-to-time. In contrast, occupants of separate dwellings lead independent lives, with separate routines and comings and goings, including that of their visitors. Given the intimate relationship between the dwellings, and the open boundary between the two properties, any use of the garden area by occupants of No.10 could result in significant noise and disturbance immediately adjacent to windows of the annex, particularly during late evening or on hotter days of the year when windows may be open.

For the above reasons, I conclude on this main issue that the development adversely harms the living conditions of occupants of the annex and No.10, with particular regard to privacy and noise and disturbance. It therefore conflicts with policy S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan, adopted April 2023 (CLLP). This seeks, amongst other things, that development relates well to the site and does not result in likely conflict with existing uses unless the amenity of occupiers of the new development will be satisfactory with the ongoing normal use of the neighbouring site. It would also conflict with advice in paragraph 135 of the 2 [name]: 123819 Framework which seeks that planning decisions should ensure a high standard of amenity for future users.

The Council’s other concerns in relation to ‘amenities’ referred to in the decision notice is set out in the officer report, which refers to the outlook and internal space standards for occupants of the annex. The bedroom of the annex has a reasonably large window which is located on the north elevation of the building, close to a tall boundary fence. Whilst it is likely that the narrow external space would be in shade for much of the time, I saw the room receives adequate daylight. However, the outlook from this window is limited, with the greatest proportion of a ‘skyward view’ only being possible when standing very close to the window. The outlook is severely constrained by the fence at such close proximity. As a consequence, there is an unacceptable sense of enclosure within the room. It is reasonable to expect that a not insignificant proportion of the occupant’s day would be spent within the bedroom.

[name] accept that permission has already been granted for use of the annex as living accommodation, including that the bedroom has the same outlook, the use of a building ancillary to the main use of No.10 as a dwelling is materially different to its use as a separate dwelling. As a separate dwelling, the bedroom does not have an adequate outlook, whereas as an annex linked to No.10, alternative accommodation to mitigate and provide respite in relation to this matter remains available.

In relation to the size of accommodation within the annex, the overall gross internal floorspace exceeds that prescribed in [name]. No other standards have been put to me. I find the configuration and size of the accommodation is reasonably generous in terms of the amount of living space it offers. Due to its size, it would be unlikely to accommodate more than two people and a condition to restrict the number of occupants would be unnecessary. However, this positive factor does not outweigh the harm caused to the overall standard of accommodation as a result of the poor outlook within the annex’s sole bedroom.

For these reasons, I conclude that the living conditions of occupants of the annex are adversely harmed, with particular regard to outlook. This conflicts with Policy S53 of the CLLP and paragraph 135 of the Framework insofar as both seek the aims I have set out above.

The Council have cited policy NS27 of the CLLP in their reason for refusal relating to the above main issues. While policy NS27 advises that the conversion of annexes to independent dwellings will rarely be acceptable, the policy is not determinative here because it relates to the creation (my emphasis) of a residential annex and to conditions restricting the use of annexes, neither of which are directly applicable in this case.

As set out above, policy NS27 of the CLLP states that the conversion of annexes to independent dwellings will rarely be acceptable. This does not mean they will never be acceptable. Along with the main issues referred to above, the Council set out in the officer report that the principle of a dwelling in the location of the appeal site would not comply with policies S1 and S4 of the CLLP. It is important that I consider these policies in assessing whether or not the site would be an appropriate location for a new dwelling.

Tealby is defined as a ‘Medium Village’ in the settlement hierarchy set out within policy S1 of the CLLP where well connected or well served villages may receive some limited growth through allocations in order to achieve a balance between ensuring the vitality of the village and protecting rural character. The appeal site is not an allocated housing site. Policy S1 goes on to state that beyond site allocations, residential development will be limited to that which accords with Policy S4.

Part 1 of policy S4 states that in order to support their role and function, medium villages will experience limited growth through allocated sites, sites allocated in neighbourhood plans, or on unallocated sites in ‘appropriate locations’ within the ‘developed footprint’ of the village that are typically up to 10 dwellings. The policy also advises that proposals on unallocated sites not meeting these criteria will not generally be supported unless there are clear material planning considerations that indicate otherwise.

There is agreement between the parties that the site is within the developed footprint of the village and, being surrounded by housing, I agree.

Given the annex is an existing building, I am satisfied the development does not conflict with those elements of the qualifying criteria specified in the definition of an ‘appropriate location’ provided in the CLLP relating to the character and appearance of the settlement or its rural setting. However, while this may weigh in favour of my determination as to whether the proposed development would be in an appropriate location, the definition also carries the caveat that the location of the proposal should not conflict, when taken as a whole, with national policy or policies in the CLLP.

[name] have found conflict with policy S53 of the CLLP as set out above with regard to living conditions, the development does not meet all the criteria within Part 1 of policy S4. For the same reason, it does not meet the criteria in Part 2c of policy S4 because it is not consistent with other policies in the development plan.

Therefore, to conclude on this main issue, while the development meets some criteria set out in the CLLP definition of an appropriate location, because it conflicts with policy S53 of the CLLP it does not meet all criteria. Consequently, the development is not a suitable location for housing, with particular regard to the local development plan spatial strategy. It conflicts with Part 1 of Policy S4 of the CLLP and for the same reasons, it conflicts with Part 2c of the CLLP. The proposal therefore also conflicts with Policy S1 of the CLLP which seeks that an appropriate level of growth in medium villages is accommodated via site allocations and development that accords with Policy S4. I consider the weight to be given to this conflict under the Planning Balance below.

The appeal site is located within Lincolnshire Wolds National Landscape (LWNL). Section 245 of the [name] and Regeneration Act 2023 amended the duty on relevant authorities in respect of their interactions with statutory purposes of National Landscapes, as set out in Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended). In so far as it relates to this appeal, the amendment now requires relevant authorities “in exercising or performing any function in relation to or so as to affect land in an AONB... to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB”. As such, it is incumbent on me to evidence consideration of ways to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the LWNL.

From my own observations and the evidence before me, the special qualities of the LWNL are, in part, due to the natural beauty of the predominantly agricultural undulating landscape and scattered woodlands; with rural villages that include historic buildings in the area retaining a rural charm and tranquillity. The annex is an existing building surrounded by relatively modern development within the built-up part of the village where the defining features of the LWNL are not readily visible from the appeal site. Thus, I am satisfied that the proposal would conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the LWNL, so there would be no conflict with the statutory purpose of the designation.

The site is also in proximity to a [name] listed building, Corner House3. I have been provided with the list entry for [address], which identifies the two storey detached residential property as an early 19th century building. It is constructed of stock brick and coursed ironstone rubble. Insofar as is relevant to the appeal, and from the information before me, I consider the significance and special interest of the building largely derive from its historic and architectural interest. Important contributors in these regards are its use of traditional materials and surviving historic fabric which serve as a good illustration of early 19th century domestic architecture.

The annex is part of the overall village setting of the [address], within which the varied age and appearance of buildings are already experienced. As such, the development does not diminish the ability to appreciate the [address]’s heritage significance. I therefore find that its setting is preserved, and its significance not harmed. This meets the statutory requirement of section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) and the provisions in the Framework regarding the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. I note the Council also raised no concerns in this respect.

The appeal site is located adjacent to Tealby Conservation Area (CA), and is within its immediate setting. The CA’s special interest and significance are mainly derived from its informal and winding historic street pattern, the commanding position of the Parish Church of [name] and the architectural quality and traditional construction of many of the buildings. Pertinent to the appeal, the CA’s significance is also derived, in part, from its rural setting on the western slopes of the LWNL. The appeal site, including the annex, and immediately neighbouring properties form a cluster of relatively modern properties and as such make a neutral contribution to the setting of the CA and thus its significance.

As development within the setting of the CA, the use of the annex as a dwelling does not alter the contribution that the CA’s setting makes to its significance as a designated heritage asset. I find the character and appearance of the CA is preserved and thus there is no harm to the significance of the CA as a whole. 3 National Heritage List for England, [name]: 1359794

Information before me indicates the annex has been in use as a separate dwelling for a considerable time. Even if there have been no complaints during this period in relation to its use as a dwelling and there is no longer a need for current occupants of No.10 to use the annex as ancillary accommodation, this is a neutral factor rather than one that carries positive weight in favour of the appeal. I also note there were no objections to the development. However, a lack of objection is not a reason to approve unacceptable development.

The appellants claim that the development provides an affordable dwelling is not supported by any evidence. Nonetheless, it provides one additional dwelling and adds diversity to the available housing stock in the area. This makes a valuable contribution to the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes which is set out in the Framework. It does so on a smaller, windfall site that is close to services and facilities, making an efficient use of land. It also provides a boost to the local economy through spending by its occupants. Due to the limited scale of the development, these are considerations which collectively carry moderate weight in support of the development.

The harm to the living conditions of occupants of the annex and No.10 would be significant. The development further conflicts with the strategic aims of the development plan where these relate to the location of new housing. This collective harm would not be outweighed by the benefits identified above.

For the reasons given above, the development is contrary to the local development plan and the Framework and there are no material considerations of such weight to lead me to conclude otherwise. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.