Appeal 6002423

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for converting an existing garage to a habitable space for office use or similar at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2024/0900, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos PP-12952346v1, 961/04A, 961/05A and 961/06.

The development shall not be carried out other than in the following materials: External – render and brick; Roof – Plain tiles; and Windows – white upvc.

The outbuilding hereby permitted shall only be occupied in connection with, and ancillary to, the occupation of the existing dwelling on the site, and in particular shall not be separately let, sold or otherwise occupied as a separate independent dwelling.

At my site visit, alterations had been made to the garage, and it appeared that it was being used for ancillary living accommodation. However, the external alterations were not the same as those shown on the plans on which it has been confirmed the Council made its decision. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether the proposal would be at an acceptable risk from flooding.

[address] is a residential street with the plots in the vicinity of the site characterised by a regular layout of dwellings set in narrow plots with modest front and reasonably sized rear gardens. Many of the surrounding properties have garages set to the rear of the garden, accessed via an unlit accessway that runs to the rear of the properties on [address] and [address].

The proposal is for ancillary accommodation, and it is on that basis I must assess it. The building is capable of being accessed from the rear. However, this would be along an unlit access and through a narrow gate which is sited between the side elevation of the appeal property and the neighbouring garage. This would be impractical and unattractive as the access to an independent unit of accommodation due to its limited width which would prevent some goods being delivered to the building and its position along an unlit road.

The garage building is set a relatively short distance away from the main dwelling. The plans do show the installation of bathroom and kitchen facilities. The building is of a small scale and would offer only limited accommodation space. The substantial opening to the elevation facing the dwelling would allow only a limited level of privacy, further emphasising the subservient nature of the proposal to the main building. The proposal would therefore be genuinely ancillary to the main dwelling. Were it not occupied as such, this would be a matter for the Council to address.

The proposal would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would be in accordance with Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan (2015) (DMP) Policies DM2 and DM10, and [name] (2011) (CS) Policies CS8 and CS17 which require development to respect the character of the area and for ancillary accommodation to be subservient to the main dwelling.

[name] have found that the proposal would be ancillary to the main dwelling, no new unit of accommodation would be created and a place of safety available in the main dwelling. No additional supporting information would be required.

The proposal would therefore be at an acceptable risk from flooding and so would not conflict with CS Policy CS26 which seeks to reduce the overall and local risk of flooding. DMP Policy DM6 is not of direct relevance to this reason for refusal.

Many properties had garages to the rear and on-street parking is available on [address]. The loss of one garage space would have the most limited effect on living conditions and highway safety. There would not be a material increase in the demand for water or on drainage. As ancillary accommodation, the proposal would be acceptable for the people using it.

As a single storey property, the large glazed openings would not result in a loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. The building sits adjacent to garages serving the neighbouring properties and so there would be a neutral effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The Council has suggested several conditions should the appeal be allowed. I have had regard to these in light of the advice contained within paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). I have imposed standard conditions relating to the commencement of development and approved plans to define the terms of the permission.

It is reasonable and necessary to control the external materials in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. DMP Policy DM10 confirms that conditions will be imposed to restrict the occupancy of ancillary accommodation, so it is reasonable to impose such a condition in this case.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.