Appeal 6003379

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the conversion and extension of existing outbuilding to create additional primary living accommodation at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 11/25/0284, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: R0934 [name]; R-0934-06 [name]; and R-0934- 07 [name].

An application for costs was made by [name] against Hyndburn Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would create a new dwellinghouse.

The appeal site contains an existing single storey building between the front elevation of an existing dwelling known as [site address] and the highway. The existing outbuilding is adjacent to the garden area of the main dwelling which forms the primary external living space for the occupiers. There are two existing vehicular access from the appeal site to the highway.

The proposal would extend the existing outbuilding to provide additional primary accommodation that will be ancillary to the main dwelling. The proposal would include a kitchen, living room, two bedrooms, bathroom, and shower room.

In this instance, the description of development cannot be ignored, nor can the type of planning application, for Householder Development, which the proposed development has been submitted under. The proposed development was advertised on the basis of the above. If the structure 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. As such, a condition limiting the use to that proposal would not be necessary, were I minded to allow the appeal.

I accept that the proposed development is not physically connected to the main dwelling and contains the facilities normally to be expected as part and parcel of an independent dwelling. I further acknowledge that, given the existence of two vehicular accesses to the appeal site, these could be utilised separately with the Council contending that the proposal would meet [name]. However, the plans show no physical separation of the land between the two buildings, with the information submitted with the planning application indicating that occupants of the appeal property and the outbuilding would share parking and access arrangements.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that the red line on the location plan should include all land necessary to carry out the proposed development. A blue line should be drawn around any other land owned by the applicant, close to or adjoining the application site. The site location plan includes a red line boundary encompassing the existing outbuilding and all land necessary to carry out the proposed development, and a blue line boundary encompassing the appeal property. As such, the boundaries comply with the PPG and do not identify a separate planning unit.

The supporting text of Design Guidance 15 of the [name] Planning Document (2009) (the SPD) favours attached annexes, discouraging those with more than one bedroom. Nonetheless, it goes on to say that each application will be treated on its own merits. The SPD seeks to ensure annexes remain ancillary to the existing dwelling. Given the proposal is for additional primary living accommodation and is presented as a Householder Development, it would be ancillary to the appeal property and comply with the SPD when read as a whole. There is no evidence the proposal would be used other than as described in the application and if this were not the case, the Council may draw on its powers under [name] of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development as described in the application would form ancillary residential accommodation to the main dwelling and not create a new dwellinghouse. The Council have not referred me to any relevant development plan policies. I have no reason to believe the proposal would not accord with the National Planning Policy Framework which requires approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay, and where there are no relevant development plan policies, granting permission.

The decision notice references Policy ENV6 of the [name] (2012) and Policy DM26 of the Hyndburn Development Management Development Plan Document (2018) which broadly relate to design. These policies are not relevant to this main issue and the Council confirm that their inclusion was an error in drafting.

For certainty, I have set out the timescale for the commencement of development. A condition is also necessary, for certainty and enforceability, requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

The Council have suggested a condition requiring the submission of a Construction Management Plan (CAM) to mitigate the impact of the construction traffic on the highway. However, there is no evidence that a CAM is necessary or reasonable, given the relatively small scale of the proposal and the limited construction traffic that is likely to be generated.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.