Appeal 6001380

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this case are: i) the effect of the proposal, functioning as a self-contained residential unit, would have on the amenities of the adjoining neighbours; ii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and iii) its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos.26 and [address].

The appeal site is a detached bungalow with an annexe in the rear garden that has been erected without planning permission, situated in a predominantly residential area with a mix of detached bungalows and two-storey houses of varying architectural styles and periods. The annexe measures approximately 10.2m wide, 6.3m deep and has a gabled roof that measures 2.2m to the eaves and 4m to the ridge. It has a forward projecting entrance under a lower gabled roof. As shown on the submitted floor plan, the annexe would contain a lounge area, kitchen, bathroom and bedroom, although at the time of my site visit the structure is yet to be finished internally. The only windows are on the front elevation, one each side of glazed double entrance doors.

The Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) states that a residential annexe is defined as accommodation ancillary to the main dwelling within the residential curtilage and must only be used for this purpose. The annexe must form part of the same planning unit, sharing facilities, including access, parking and garden areas and in the event of approval, the council would impose conditions or seek other measures to prevent an annexe from being occupied independently.

National and the SPD policies recognise that such accommodation can be appropriate where it remains ancillary to the host dwelling and does not create a separate self-contained residential unit. In this case, the appellant explained to the council that the annexe would be used by a family member who does not reside at [address] and it would be used for a maximum of two nights per week, as well as for the odd holiday when given respite from the supported residential home. Clearly, the family member does not need a permanent home on the appeal site, and for much of the time it potentially would be available for other occupation. In these circumstances it would be difficult for the council to monitor and enforce conditions or other measures to prevent the annexe from being occupied independently.

The annexe would have the capability of functioning as a self-contained residential unit in the rear garden, in which event it would result in additional comings and goings associated with an independent use of a building and its access, and would result in unacceptable impacts upon the living conditions of neighbours. Furthermore, the use of the annexe as a weekend residence for a family member under the supervision of a separate care home is a materially different use to that of annexe accommodation.

I conclude that there is not a sufficient justification for an annexe as proposed since the family member for whom it is intended clearly has adequate housing at the present time. [name] can see that having the proposed annexe for occasional stays would be convenient both for the incumbent family and the family member, this does not amount to a sufficient reason for allowing a building capable of independent living in the back garden of the appeal dwelling. Furthermore, the annexe is a substantial construction and would outlast the current circumstances.

In addition to the above, the bulk, scale, massing, height and proximity to the shared boundaries means that the building is visually intrusive and appears overbearing in the outlook from the gardens of the neighbouring occupiers at nos. 26 and [address].

The officer’s report also mentions a loss of privacy to the rear garden of No.28, since there is currently only a low wall on the boundary. However, any permission could include a condition requiring a sufficiently high fence which would provide privacy.

I conclude that the proposed annexe does not comply with national and SPD polices, as it effectively would be an independent dwelling with no indication that there would be any reliance on the facilities of the host property. As such it would have unacceptable impacts on neighbours through increased activity and by appearing as overbearing and intrusive in the outlook from their rear gardens. I consider that there are no conditions that could be imposed that would overcome these objections. Therefore the appeal will be dismissed.