Appeal 6001053

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site includes two buildings: the dwelling known as [site address] (VC); and a semi-detached building (the appeal building) that adjoins the neighbouring property known as Foxwood. Planning permission for the construction of VC1 was granted subject to Condition 3 requiring, amongst other things, the demolition of the appeal building, which has not occurred. This appeal relates to the retention of the appeal building as an annexe to VC.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal constitutes an annexe to VC as the main dwelling; and • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site is located within a small cluster of dwellings along an unmade track known as [site address] . The cluster is separated from the settlement of [name]. The spacious plots, low density and informality of built form and the presence of surrounding fields contribute positively to the rural character of the area. The appeal building can be seen intermittently through hedge openings and over fences when travelling along the public footpath ([name] 20), which is situated at an elevated position beyond the rear boundary of the appeal site. 1 Council Ref FUL/MAL/04/00816.

The appeal building sits at the front of the site, unlike VC, the main part of which is significantly set back and is semi-detached, adjoining an unrelated dwelling, and includes typical front elevational features such as a main access door and porch. The wider property is particularly large, commensurate with its rural location and position at the terminus of [site address] . A substantial driveway and part of the garden physically separate the two buildings.

The proposed annexe would provide a kitchen/dining room, lounge and utility/boot room on the ground floor, and a bedroom, study and bathroom at first floor level to provide accommodation for a dependent relative of the appellants.

The distance between the appeal building and VC, together with its prominent forward position and the proposed retention of its front elevational treatment, would maintain the impression of a separate dwelling, regardless of the proposed shared vehicular access, parking and garden space. The appellants have indicated willingness to plant a continuous front boundary hedge and to permanently inhibit use of the front door to better integrate the two buildings within the single plot. However, it is unlikely that such features would be substantial enough to change the overall form and appearance of the appeal building, which is perceived as a separate dwelling.

Furthermore, due to the intervening distance and positioning of the two buildings in relation to one another, it would be problematic to integrate the appeal building into the main dwelling later should the annexe use cease to be required.

VC is a substantial 4-bedroomed dwelling that is taller and has a much larger footprint than the appeal building. However, the positioning of the appeal building significantly forward of the main part of VC and the retention of its appearance and form as a separate dwelling would not render it subservient to its host.

I acknowledge that there would be a functional link between the buildings in so far as the appeal building would be occupied by a dependent relative of the residents of VC, that the buildings would share outside space and that they would be within the same ownership, aided by the appellants’ suggested restrictive conditions. However, these matters alone do not lead me to conclude that the proposal would comprise an annexe in this case. For the above reasons, the proposal would not be part and parcel of the main dwelling and would likely create a separate dwelling.

The Uttlesford2 case accepts that providing sufficient living accommodation to meet the full needs of the proposed annexe resident, as is proposed in this case, would not necessarily create a separate planning unit. However, the case law also acknowledges that consideration should be based on fact and degree, and due to the site-specific circumstances and details of the proposal in this case, as articulated above, I am led to the conclusion that the proposal would not form an annexe to the main dwelling.

The appellants have provided examples of approved and implemented annexe proposals, including that linked to neighbouring Foxwood. There are similarities with the appeal before me in terms of scale and extent of living accommodation provided. Nevertheless, I am not convinced that these examples are wholly 2 Uttlesford District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and another [1992] JPL171. comparable due to their positioning within the site, relationship with the host dwelling and due to the ability to integrate them successfully into the main dwelling use in the future should the annexe be no longer required.

For the above reasons, I find that the proposal would not constitute an annexe to VC as the main dwelling. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to the Maldon Specialist Needs Supplementary Planning Document (2018) (the SPD). The SPD provides detailed guidance on the provision of annexes to accommodate those with specialist needs. It expects development to be designed in such a manner to enable the annexe to be used later as an integral part of the main dwelling and be subservient to it.

The appeal building has been a longstanding feature of the area for some time. However, the planning permission for the construction of VC required its demolition, which must be the baseline for my appeal deliberations. [name] acknowledge that this proposal is for use of the building as an annexe with shared garden, driveway and parking provision with VC, the built form of the appeal building would remain largely unchanged, which is substantial and appears as an independent dwelling.

The presence of this substantial building at the front of the plot creates a much denser built form when viewed from [site address] than would have been the case with its demolition. Furthermore, together with VC and Foxwood, the appeal building creates an almost continuous line of built development when viewed from the public footpath. Its retention would therefore be in stark contrast to the prevailing spacious residential plots within this small cluster of dwellings, conflicting with the rural character of the surroundings.

Consequently, the proposal would have a significant harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to Policies S1, S8, D1, H4 and T2 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017). These policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure the rural character of the district is maintained and that development respects and enhances local context.

I accept that the proposed development would provide affordable living accommodation for the appellants’ grandson who has learning challenges, despite there being an absence of medical diagnostic evidence before me. The provision of annexe accommodation can be extremely important in such circumstances to enable dependents to be close to family members who can provide the required level of care and security whilst also facilitating a degree of independence. I also acknowledge the wider benefits of such a multi-generational living arrangement in helping to reduce pressure on housing, social and health services.

Notwithstanding, I am aware that planning permission exists3 for the continued use of the existing garage as an annexe and the appellants have not forwarded any substantive evidence to suggest why this would not provide suitable accommodation for their grandson. Furthermore, I am also mindful of the advice contained within the Planning Practice Guidance that confirms that planning is in general concerned with land use in the public interest. The appeal building would 3 Council Ref FUL/MAL/13/00380. likely remain in situ long after the personal circumstances cease to exist and my reasoning above confirms that I am not convinced that the building would be capable of being integrated into the main dwelling in the future.

The re-use of the existing building, with the potential for retrofitted energy and water efficient technologies, would provide a more environmentally friendly alternative to demolition and the construction of a new build annexe. Furthermore, the proposal would also include habitat enhancements for wildlife and contribute towards employment during any required renovation work. That said, I am conscious that the proposal is for a single annexe and therefore these benefits are limited.

Overall, I attribute moderate weight to the above benefits.

There is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the policies most important for determining this annexe proposal are out-of-date and therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as articulated at paragraph 11 d) ii) of the National Planning Policy Framework, is not engaged. The appellants assert that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Although this may be the case, this annexe proposal would not contribute to general housing supply, and I am therefore not required to consider this matter further in my appeal deliberations.

The appellants have referenced the findings of a recent appeal decision4 relating to the same site, which was dismissed and sought permission for the retention of the appeal building as a separate dwelling. The Inspector did note that annexe accommodation may be an appropriate solution to enable the appellants’ grandson to live at [address]. However, they did not pass comment on the type of annexe accommodation that could be appropriate and simply noted that there is an existing annexe on site.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and the Council’s SPD, 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.