Appeal 6001593

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of garage and erection of a single storey extension at [site address] , Hadleigh, Ipswich [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/04068, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The description of the proposal on the application form includes words which are not a description of development. Therefore, in the interests of clarity and accuracy, in allowing the appeal, I have used the description of proposed development used by the Council in its decision notice.

The main issues are: i) whether or not the proposed development would constitute a separate dwelling; ii) the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area; iii) the effect on parking; and iv) whether the proposal would make adequate provision for biodiversity net gain (BNG).

The Council has alleged that the proposal would be tantamount to a self-contained independent residential unit. The proposed development has been applied for as an extension and the householder application form submitted. The appellants submissions indicates that the building would be used on an ad hoc basis for their family when visiting.

Policy LP02 of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan 2023 (JLP) details that residential annexes will be supported where they are ancillary and subordinate in scale to the host dwelling; does not involve the physical subdivision of the residential curtilage; and is designed to easily allow for the annexe to be integrated later into the main building as a single dwellinghouse when the need no longer exists.

The proposed building would be positioned a significant distance from the main dwelling. The plans indicate subdivision of the existing garden. Irrespective of whether the proposal is considered as a dwelling or annex, the extended building would include a range of facilities (including kitchen/living/dining area, bedroom and bathroom), which is indicative of a building which could be occupied for extensive periods of time (throughout the day and night). Furthermore, owing to the access and parking arrangements, it is highly likely that future occupiers would access the building from the road to the south of the building rather than entering via the existing property. Accordingly, the proposed building would be independently accessible from the main house. For these reasons the proposal would be capable of supporting independent occupation.

Be that as it may case law, including [name] v SSE & White [1992], has held that, even if the accommodation provides the capability for independent day-to-day living, it will not necessarily become a separate planning unit from the main dwelling. That is a matter of fact and degree. An appropriately worded condition could restrict the occupancy and plot severance.

Whilst there is some physical separation between the dwellinghouse and the proposed annex this reflects the current arrangement. Although it would be extended the overall scale of the proposal is relatively modest. Furthermore, given the proposal is for a conversion of an existing structure I am satisfied that the proposal would allow for the annexe to be integrated later into the main building as a single dwellinghouse should the need no longer exist.

Even if the development could be used as a separate dwelling, such a proposal is not before me. If the development is not built or used as proposed, or if there is a material change of use in the future to create a separate dwelling, then a separate grant of planning permission would be required, and the building would be at risk of enforcement action if such permission is not granted.

Accordingly, based on the evidence before me, the proposed development would not constitute a separate dwelling, and therefore I find no conflict with Policy LP02 of the JLP.

The appeal site lies within a predominantly residential area. The existing detached garage is positioned to the south of the garden. This is accessed from the highway to the rear of the property, which serves a significant number of garages. Dwellings and gardens in the locality are of a range of styles and scales.

The Council does not dispute that the extended garage creates a coherent aesthetic and pleasing ensemble which does not upset the existing local vernacular. However, they raise concern that its enlarged scale combined with its position within the plot upsets the built hierarchy expected within a residential curtilage.

The proposal would increase the scale of the building; however, the addition would be proportionate to the overall plot.

Accordingly, the proposal would comply with the provisions of Policy LP24 of the JLP insofar as it seeks a good standard of design, which harmonises with the locality. This is in a similar vein to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) insofar as good design is concerned.

The existing garage is served by a gated access, which is to be retained. However, the proposal would result in the loss of parking spaces through the conversion of the existing garage.

The appellant submits that vehicular parking for No.111 would be accommodated to the front of the property, not dissimilar to other properties within the locality. The evidence indicates that an application for a dropped kerb1 to the front of the property has been permitted in principle by the Council. Whilst this is covered by a formal process under a different regime, I am satisfied that the frontage of the plot would be able to accommodate the required parking spaces. This is a significant material planning consideration.

The Council has suggested a condition to secure the implementation of the frontage access and parking, to which the appellant is agreeable to. This would be reasonable and necessary to ensure the provision of a satisfactory level of off-street parking to serve the property.

Consequently, subject to a condition requiring the provision of such replacement parking the proposal would be served by a satisfactory level of off-street parking in accordance with Policies LP24 and LP29 of the JLP. Collectively, and amongst other things, these require development to not severely affect the highway network, including the safety of all users, by securing an unobstructed access and egress, parking and visibility.

Policy LP16 of the JLP requires all development proposals to identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains, equivalent of a minimum 10% increase in biodiversity. Updates to the PPG2 clarified that it would be inappropriate for development plan policies to require biodiversity net gain from developments that would otherwise be exempt under the statutory framework3. Notwithstanding the Council’s recognition of the exemption, they seek general biodiversity enhancement for the proposal.

Having regard to the above, it would not be reasonable or necessary to impose a condition to secure BNG as the Planning Practice Guide (PPG) is a material consideration of significant weight that would outweigh the conflict with the JLP policy. 1 Ref: 537454 2 Paragraph: 020 [name]: 74-020-20240214 3 The Biodiversity Gain (Exemptions) Regulations 2024

The site lies outside, but adjacent to, the Hadleigh Conservation Area (CA). Hadleigh is a small market town. The CA derives its significance from a collection of historic buildings, particularly, along the main [address] which contribute to the historic character and appearance of the town and CA. The appeal site is viewed in the context of the more recent suburban housing and has a neutral impact upon the significance of the CA. The scale and design of the proposed development would be in-keeping with the existing residential development in the locality and being single storey in height, would have a negligible greater visual impact in the streetscene than the existing garage. The Council did not include a reason for refusal based on its impact upon the setting of the CA. Based on the plans before me, and as observed at my site visit, I do not consider the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the setting of the CA.

The Council has suggested several conditions. I have included those which meet the six tests set out in the Framework and the PPG, rewording, where necessary, for clarity. In addition to the statutory commencement condition, a condition is necessary to ensure that the development complies with the submitted plans in the interests of clarity.

The appellant has agreed to the imposition of a pre-commencement of works condition for the provision of frontage parking. This is reasonable and necessary in the interests of highway safety.

I have imposed a condition for the details of any boundary treatment to southern boundary in the interest of character and appearance.

For the reasons set out above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, the proposal would comply with the Framework and the development plan as a whole. The appeal is therefore allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan & Block Plan 2025/742/0500, Proposed Floor Plan 2025/742/0202 and [name] 2025/742/0201.

Prior to the commencement of development details of the proposed front access and parking arrangement (including the position of any gates to be erected and visibility splays provided if relevant) shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The access and parking shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details and maintained as such throughout the life of the development.

Prior to first occupation of the annex hereby approved details of the southern boundary treatment to the rear of the annexe shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. All approved details shall thereafter be implemented and maintained as such throughout the life of the development. ***End of Schedule***