Appeal 6001117

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Garage conversion, including extensions, to a [name] and [name], to be used ancillary to the main house at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/1566, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 25-101 001 REV P2, 25-101 002 REV P2 and 25-101 003 REV P1.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building/dwelling.

The appeal has been made against the failure of the Council to give notice of its decision within the prescribed time period. However, it has since provided a statement explaining that it would have refused permission if a decision had been made, together with its reasons. I have considered those reasons when identifying the main issues below.

The main issues are: • whether or not the proposal would create a new independent residential dwelling, and • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the countryside.

The existing building is a single storey detached double garage with a dual pitched roof. The main house is a substantial two storey L-shaped property. Both are set within a generous plot with a large rear garden.

The proposal would significantly increase the size of the garage, with the extension far exceeding the footprint of the original structure. The annex would include all the facilities needed for day-to-day living, including a kitchen, utility room, bedroom with ensuite, and a substantial pavilion/garden room. Given the scale and extent of these facilities, the Council concluded that the accommodation would be capable of being occupied independently and would amount to a separate dwelling. This formed the basis of its assessment.

I have been referred to [name] v SSE & White [1992], which established that accommodation providing facilities for independent day-to-day living does not automatically become a separate planning unit from the main dwelling. It is instead a matter of fact and degree.

In this case, the detail provided with the application and during the appeal makes it clear that the intended use is ancillary to the main dwelling. It is explained that the appellant would move into the annex to allow family members to occupy the main house. The appellant has also confirmed a willingness to accept a condition ensuring the accommodation remains ancillary.

The annex would share the garden, access and parking with the main house. While a patio is proposed, it forms part of the same shared garden and would not create a sense of separation. The buildings would also be served by a single spacious driveway.

The extension would be sizeable compared with the existing garage, but the more meaningful comparison is with the main house. The annex would remain smaller in footprint, height, bulk and mass, and clearly subordinate. The modest distance between the two buildings, together with the shared access arrangements, would encourage a familial relationship between occupiers and allow easy use of the facilities in the main house.

A separate independent dwelling is not sought as part of the proposal, and this is reflected in the description of development. To occupy the building as an independent unit would require the physical subdivision of the site. Any creation of a separate dwelling in this way would need its own planning permission, and the merits of that could be assessed at the appropriate time. There is no clear or substantiated evidence that the building has been designed with future conversion to an independent dwelling in mind.

In light of the above, I conclude that the proposal would not create a new independent residential dwelling. I have considered the appeal on that basis.

The appeal site lies within the countryside, outside any defined rural settlement or urban area. Policy BNE25 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 (LP) states that development in the countryside will only be permitted where it maintains the character, amenity and functioning of the countryside. Development must also satisfy one of several criteria. Of relevance in this case is criterion (vi), which allows for the rebuilding of, or modest extension or annex to, a dwelling. The purpose to this criterion, is to ensure that proposals respect their countryside setting, and the subtext advises that an extension or annex should not normally exceed a 25% increase over the original dwelling’s floorspace, although each proposal must be assessed on its own merits.

It is evident that the annex would increase the size of the garage building well beyond this figure. This increase has contributed to the Council’s first reason for refusal. The policy wording refers specifically to an increase over the original dwelling’s floorspace, whereas the Council has compared the proposal against the existing garage footprint. The garage is incidental to the main dwelling and forms only one component of the wider residential unit.

Taking this into account and given the policy’s emphasis on a case-by-case assessment, I consider it appropriate to assess the increase in relation to the main dwelling. No detailed calculations have been provided, but from the plans and from observing the scale of the house during my site visit, it is clear that the increase would be perceived as modest in the context of the host dwelling, in line with the policy requirement.

On the broader question of visual impact, this part of the countryside is characterised by residential dwellings of varied styles and forms, generally detached, substantial in scale, and set within large plots. It is not unusual in the locality to see generous extensions or outbuildings, particularly single storey structures. The proposal would appear clearly subordinate in scale and form to the main house. Its design would be appropriate and broadly reflective of the host dwelling.

The surrounding properties form a small cluster of residential development within open countryside. There are reasonable gaps between buildings and large plot sizes, creating a spacious semi-rural character. I acknowledge that the spacing between the appeal building and the main dwelling would reduce. However, the site would retain a spacious feel, and the single storey form of the extension would ensure that openness at upper levels is maintained, preserving the spacious character that defines this countryside setting.

In light of the above, I am satisfied that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the countryside, in accordance with Policies BNE1 and BNE25 of the LP. Taken together, and in addition to the above requirements, these require that development is appropriate in relation to the character, appearance and functioning of the area.

The Council refers to Policy BNE2, which addresses amenity protection. Although cited, the Council’s assessment finds no unacceptable effects relating to privacy, daylight, sunlight, noise, activity or traffic. Having considered the evidence and my own observations on site, I am satisfied that the ancillary use proposed would not materially harm the amenities of either the main house or neighbouring properties. I am therefore satisfied that there is no substantive conflict with Policy BNE2 and have not considered the matter further.

The Council has suggested a number of conditions in the event that the appeal is allowed. I have considered these in line with the Planning Practice Guidance and the Framework. Some of the suggested conditions have been refined in the interests of clarity and enforceability.

A condition identifying the approved plans, alongside a standard implementation timeframe, is necessary to provide certainty. A condition requiring the use of matching materials is also justified to safeguard the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The Council has proposed a condition to ensure that the building remains in ancillary use. However, the occupation of the building as an independent dwelling would require a separate grant of planning permission. A condition to control this is therefore unnecessary.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would accord with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.