Appeal 6002336

The appeal is dismissed.

The building has already been erected. However, on visiting the site, it is evident there are discrepancies between that built and the submitted plans with further discrepancies across those plans. These include the location of fenestration, the existence of a second-floor bedroom, and the roof form. For clarity, this decision has been made in relation to the submitted evidence, specifically the description of development, the proposed block plan ‘[name] – 08.06.2025’, and the elevation and floor plans on ‘2025-026_SE04 [name] as they most closely represent that built.

There is an enforcement appeal1 open in relation to the erected building. However, this will be dealt with as a separate decision under the enforcement appeal

The proposal building is described by the appellant as an annex, whilst the Council consider it a new dwelling. As it is necessary to first address this, the main issues are whether the proposed development would constitute a new dwelling; and the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and locality, and the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties with regard to outlook.

The appeal site contains a semi-detached, 2-storey dwellinghouse (the host dwelling) on a reasonably large plot which widens out to the rear and is set back from the road. There was a series of single storey outbuildings / structures between the host dwelling and boundary with [address] separating the front and rear portions of the appeal site, but these have been removed. 1 APP/D1835/C/25/3376648

The proposal building is located adjacent to the outbuilding at No. 219. It is set back behind the rear elevation of the host dwelling and on the plans is shown as single storey with living space including a kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom. A fence has been erected between it and the main part of the garden creating a separate outdoor space to the rear of the outbuilding. The host dwelling, its garden and the proposal building are all independently accessible from the driveway.

The Council has assessed the proposal against the [name] Planning Document (SPD). This document deals with annexes in section 8.3.26. It states that, notwithstanding impact on design, the annex should be able to be used in the future as part of the main residential property; provide limited accommodation; share facilities with the main property (including kitchens, outside amenity space, parking) and be physically linked to it. It is noted that the word ‘should’ provides an indication of what is probable or preferable and not specifically a requirement.

The proposal building is close enough to the host dwelling that it could be used incidentally to it. However, it provides full day-to-day living facilities, only sharing a driveway with the host dwelling. Although the appellant has confirmed that the proposal building does not have independent utility connections, nor a separate postal address or council tax account. It was observed on site the fence and gate clearly sever any physical link between the proposal building and host dwelling beyond that driveway. Therefore, the physical connection between the two buildings is weak.

However, from the information before me there is a clear intended functional dependency between the proposal building and host dwelling, specifically in relation to the occupation of the proposal building by the appellants daughter whose medical conditions could benefit from living closely to her family whilst retaining independent facilities. Equally the description of development is consistent with the proposed annex use of the new building and so aligns with section 75(2) of the Town and Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Accordingly planning permission would be required for the proposal building to constitute a separate dwellinghouse.

Therefore, in this instance, the proposal building would constitute an annex to the host dwelling and not a new dwelling.

The Council has referred to South Worcestershire Development Plan (DP) Policy SWDP 4, this policy does not refer to the creation of residential annexes but rather the management of modes of travel and infrastructure. With no harm identified in relation to travel or accessibility from the site, this policy has not been determinative in this issue.

The host dwelling sits within a row of similar semi-detached residential properties. These properties all have reasonably large gardens, and it is common to see outbuildings set back behind the main dwelling and visible down the drive. During the site visit those observed within the vicinity of the appeal site were clearly single storey predominantly with garage doors facing the drive and flat roofs. Although the outbuilding at No. 219, adjacent to the proposal building, does have a pitched roof.

This rhythm of 2 storey pairs separated by lower outbuildings creates space between the buildings and provides a cadence to the road and visual relief to the built-up characteristic of this suburban residential area.

The main bulk of the proposal building has a truncated pitched roof with a large flat crown running its full length. It has obviously higher eaves then the adjacent outbuilding at No. 219 and along with the unusual roof form gives it a contrived and unbalanced appearance visually emphasising its size and bulk in comparison to other outbuildings in the area.

The awkward roof design is further emphasised by the forward protruding gable which is more in proportion to the building at No. 219. However, this element of the building has an obscure glazed window and door in it, which gives it a more domestic presence. In combination with the roof design, this aggrandises the visual impact of the proposal building, unbalancing the subservient relationship between it and the host dwelling. So, causing harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

The incongruous nature of the proposal building therefore has an overwhelming impact on its surroundings and visually reduces the gap between 2 pairs of semi-detached properties. Accordingly, it is also not in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

That the materials are in keeping with the host dwelling does not overcome the harm identified above.

The unique requirements of the end user for this proposal have been recognised. However, there is no substantive justification as to why this design would be necessary to provide the proposed single storey annex. Further it is noted that a previous iteration of the proposal had a roof form which more closely emulated that of the host dwelling. This serves as evidence that other roof shapes could achieve the proposed internal layout.

The proposal would therefore harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its locality. It would fail to comply with DP Policy SWDP 21 as far as it requires development to integrate effectively with its surroundings and be of a scale, height and massing appropriate to its setting and the surrounding townscape. Further it would also fail to meet the requirements of the SPD guidance for outbuildings insofar as they should be subordinate in scale and similar in style to the existing property. Therefore, it also fails the design element of SPD paragraph 8.3.26 relating to annexes.

The host dwelling is between 215 and [address]. The proposal building is along the boundary on the opposite side to No. 215 and due to the shape of the appeal site extends away from it. All properties in this area enjoy reasonably long gardens that are not overly narrow and so have relatively open, if developed, views to the rear.

Therefore, I am satisfied that due to the distances involved, the proposal building, although visible from No. 215, some of those properties beyond Nos 215 and 219, and the properties to the rear, would not be so impacting on their outlook to make their occupants’ living conditions untenable.

The proposal building would also be visible from No. 219, beyond and above its own outbuilding. However, due to the orientation of the rear elevation of No, 219, which angles away from the appeal site, and taking account of the overall size of that property’s garden, it is not found that the impact on the outlook from the rear of No. 219 would be so enclosing or constricting that it would be considered overbearing.

The proposed development would not therefore have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties with regard to outlook. The proposal would therefore comply with LP Policy SWDP 21 insofar as it seeks new development to provide adequate levels of neighbouring amenity.

Interested parties were concerned with the potential loss of light. However, due to the northerly position to the rear of the properties along [address], and the generous sizes of adjacent gardens, it is not considered that access to light would be so affected as to cause harm to living conditions.

The Council has not identified harm in relation to highways, landscape, and contamination. However, a lack of harm, is by definition, neutral in the planning balance.

Concerns relating to property value, boundary infringements, and from the appellant, inconsistencies in the Council’s advice, are acknowledged but do not alter the planning merits of the case. Further the partially retrospective nature of the application is acceptable within the planning process.

[name] have found for the proposal in terms of it being an annex, with specific regard to the requirements of the appellant’s daughter, and that it would not harm the living conditions of the neighbouring residents. These would represent a lack of harm, and thus, by definition, are incapable of weighing against the harm that I have found regarding the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its locality.

In these findings, I have had regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, and victimisation, to advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Although the proposal would provide accommodation for a vulnerable person, and this has been considered, it does not follow that where regard to the PSED is necessary the appeal should automatically succeed.

Consequently, for the reasons given above the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no sufficiently weighted material considerations, including the Framework, which would indicate a decision otherwise. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.