Appeal 6002683

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of double garage and erection of single-storey annexe outbuilding at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 5/25/0717, 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 2408_P001 Location Plan, 2408_P002 [name], 2408_P110 [name] and 2408_P205 Existing & [name].

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed using the materials shown on plan no 2408_P205 Existing & [name].

The building hereby permitted shall not be used other than as part of the dwelling known as [site address] .

An application for costs was made by [name] against [site address] City & District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issue is whether the proposed development is tantamount to a self-contained dwelling.

The appeal property comprises a detached dwelling set within a reasonably large plot. A detached single-storey garage building is located adjacent to the main dwelling. The property is located within an area which is residential in character, predominantly comprising detached dwellings on plots of broadly comparable size to the appeal site.

The appeal proposal is a single-storey annexe which would be located on the site of the existing garage. The annexe is intended for family use and would remain part of the main house.

Policy 12 of the City and District of [site address] District Local Plan Review (1994) (the Local Plan) states that planning permission for the provision of accommodation within the curtilage of a dwelling for the occupation by aged or infirm relatives or dependents or by staff will normally be permitted provided (i) the accommodation forms an extension to the main dwelling; (ii) primary pedestrian access is through the main dwelling; and (iii) the proposals comply with Policy 72.

While the appeal proposal would not be physically attached to the existing house, the wording of Policy 12 does not specify this. Indeed, the appellant has drawn to my attention to recent cases in the District where the Council has, following assessment against Policy 12, approved annexes not physically attached to dwellings. [name] do not have full details of these cases before me and I am mindful that each case must be assessed on its own individual circumstances, there are commonalities between the appeal proposal and these cases in respect of the assessment required by Policy 12 of the Local Plan. Specifically, these annexes are also detached from the main dwellings. Also, like these cases, the proposed annexe would not be provided with a separate curtilage or address, private garden or access from the highway, ensuring it remains part of the main dwelling.

In this context, based on an interpretation of the policy wording consistent with that of the Council in relation to other recent cases, I see no reason to conclude other than that the proposal is consistent with Policy 12(i).

I acknowledge that there would be an access to the front of the building, separate from the main dwelling. However, this would not be the sole access to the building, with access also to be provided through the shared garden. Policy 12 allows for an independent garden or secondary access, and the proposal would be compliant with the policy in this regard.

Moreover, given that there is no evidence before me to suggest that the building is intended to be anything other than annexe, having regard to the location close to the main house, the familial relationship between the occupiers and the shared garden space and parking, I am satisfied that the presence of a separate access does not result in the proposal being contrary to Policy 12(ii).

The Council does not object to the proposal in respect of its impact on the character of the site and its surroundings. From the plans before me and my observations on site, I see no reason to disagree with this finding regarding compliance with Policy 72, and therefore Policy 12(iii).

Notwithstanding the above, a suitably worded condition would provide certainty that the annexe remains part of the main house.

For these reasons, I conclude that, in this case, the annexe would not be occupied as a separate self-contained dwelling. In this regard, the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of Policy 12 of the Local Plan.

Given my findings above, the Council’s concerns with regard to design, siting, form and adequacy of amenity space and parking, were the proposal to constitute a self-contained dwelling, are not determinative.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions against the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. Where necessary, I have amended the wording of conditions for clarity, and to ensure compliance with the tests of both precision and enforceability.

In addition to requiring commencement within the relevant statutory period, I have imposed a condition requiring adherence to the approved plans. These conditions are imposed for certainty.

A condition relating to materials is necessary in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the property and surrounding area.

I have imposed a condition requiring that the annexe is used only as part of the main house, amending the wording suggested by the Council on the basis that the annexe is intended to provide living accommodation rather than be used for purposes ancillary to the use of the main house. This condition is necessary to ensure that the annexe is not used as a separate dwelling.

For the reasons given above, the proposal accords with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.