Appeal 6001835

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of 1 bedroom annexe associated with main dwelling at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref S25/1152, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: 25 002 001 [name] (Location Plan) and 25 002 002 [name] ([name] & Block Plan).

The building hereby permitted shall not be used or occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the main dwelling which is identified as ‘Hillview’ on the approved Location Plan.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is whether the appeal site would be an appropriate location for the proposed development, having regard to the development plan and national policy.

[site address] is a detached bungalow set within a generous plot, which is accessed from a private driveway off [site address] . A pet boarding facility adjoins the site, comprising several outbuildings and a separate access and parking area from the appeal dwelling. The appeal site occupies a position between Claypole and Stubton, and away from the settlement edge of these villages. It is therefore evidently within the open countryside.

The proposed annexe would be sited within the rear garden of the existing dwelling. It would be detached from the main house and would provide the facilities necessary for day-to-day living. Even so, this does not necessarily result in a separate planning unit being formed. I have not been directed to any development plan policies relating specifically to the consideration of residential extensions or annexes. However, the Council’s report confirms that to be acceptable in principle, residential annexes outside of the settlement boundaries need to have a clear physical or functional link to the main dwelling. I concur with this approach.

The appellant confirms that the annexe would accommodate an elderly relative, providing a modestly sized kitchen, living space, bedroom and an en-suite shower room to afford a level of independence and privacy. As such, there would be a family relationship between the occupiers of the main dwelling and the annexe and the close proximity of the buildings would allow convenient access between the two.

Due to its domestic design, modest scale, and close positioning within the shared rear garden, the development would evidently appear as a subservient and ancillary building to the main dwelling. These factors would also ensure that the two buildings would appear physically connected and the Council accepts that there would be no harm to the character and appearance of the area through provision of an annexe in this location. The evidence before me also confirms that the annexe would share the same access, parking area, utilities and postal address as the host dwelling, thereby having a clear functional dependency on it.

The Council contends that the property could be severed to form a new planning unit. However, no such alterations to the appeal site are proposed. The description of the development makes clear that planning permission is sought for an annexe associated with the main dwelling. Any future proposal to create a separate planning unit would be a change of use that would require planning permission. Moreover, a condition similar to that suggested by the Council to control occupancy of the annexe would further ensure its ancillary relationship with [site address] .

As the proposal relates to an existing residential property, Policy SP5 of the South Kesteven District Council Local Plan (2020) is of limited relevance, as the proposed annexe would be ancillary to the existing lawful use of the site. No other development plan policies are before me to suggest that an annexe relating to an existing dwelling would not be appropriately located. Furthermore, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) does not advocate a blanket restriction on development relating to existing residential properties in the countryside.

In the circumstances, the proposed development would be appropriately located, having regard to the development plan and national policy.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions in light of the advice of the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to time limit and approved plans conditions, both of which are necessary and reasonable in the interests of certainty and good planning, a condition to ensure occupation and use as ancillary to that of the main dwelling is also reasonable and aligns with the description of development. Read together the permitted use of the annexe is clear and the more detailed wording suggested by the Council is not necessary. Given the limited scale of the proposed development, the condition recommended by the Council’s Environmental Protection Services in respect of construction working hours is not necessary. Should any unreasonable working practices occur, these could be reported to and investigated by the Council.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.