Appeal 6003426

The appeal is dismissed.

The name of the appellant as stated on the application form and decision notice appears to be incorrect in terms of spelling. I have therefore taken the name of the appellant from the appeal form.

Included within the appellant’s statement of case is an image purporting to show an amended proposed block plan, illustrating existing landscaping. However, this is not a scaled drawing and is of insufficient quality to be interpreted with any confidence. I therefore do not regard it as an amended plan for the purposes of the appeal and will deal with the appeal on the basis of the original submitted plans.

The main issue is whether the development would be tantamount to the creation of an independent dwelling; and if so, whether it would provide adequate living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to private amenity space, landscaping, parking and waste provision.

The appeal site comprises an end terrace property which has been extended and subdivided to comprise 4 separate flats with associated garages, parking and bin storage on the shared driveway and yard area to the side and rear. The existing flat at 46 [site address] (No 46) has private amenity space to the front, and the remaining 3 flats all share an area of paved external amenity space located to the rear of the existing triple garage block.

The proposal comprises the demolition of the existing triple garage block and the erection of a new single storey detached building. The appellant states that this annexe would be used for ancillary residential accommodation associated with the ground floor 2-bedroom flat at [site address] [site address] (No [site address] ). It would contain an open plan living room and kitchen, double bedroom and shower room and thereby provide all facilities necessary for day-to-day living. The entrance to the annexe would be via the shared driveway and yard area.

The Council submits that insufficient justification has been submitted to establish that the annexe would be reasonably ancillary to the main dwelling at No [site address] in size and function. The appellant confirms that the annexe would be a cost-efficient way of providing independent living facilities for elderly relatives in close proximity, so that emotional and practical support can be given.

I acknowledge that the ability for independent day-to-day living does not necessarily mean that it would become a separate dwelling. However, it is a matter of fact and degree in any particular case, and each case must therefore be determined on its own merits. [name] have no reason to doubt the personal circumstances stated by the appellant, I am not satisfied that they are sufficient to clearly demonstrate that the proposed development would operate as a subordinate and ancillary part of the main dwelling at No [site address] . Therefore, given the extent of the proposed accommodation, which would be similar in size to the main dwelling at No [site address] , and the limited evidence to demonstrate the sharing of facilities with No [site address] , the proposal would be tantamount to an independent dwelling.

The personal circumstances put forward are also likely to be short term compared with the permanent provision of the building. Although the appellant indicates that the building could later be re-purposed as a guest suite, home office or accommodation for adult children, I must consider the proposal before me.

The proposal would significantly reduce the size of the existing shared external amenity space currently serving 3 of the existing flats. No private external amenity space is provided for the new dwelling, whose occupants would be entirely dependent on the diminished shared paved area to the rear. In addition, while the submitted plans indicate parking for No 46 at the front of the existing property, my site visit confirmed that this area is presently an enclosed garden area. On the evidence before me, it is therefore unclear how adequate landscaping, parking and bin storage for the resulting 5 dwellings would be accommodated within the site.

Accordingly, I find that the proposal would be tantamount to an independent dwelling which would not provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to private amenity space, landscaping, parking and waste provision. It would therefore conflict with [name]-P1 and JP-C8 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document 2022 to 2039 (March 2024) and Policies L4 and L7 of the Trafford Local Plan: [name] (January 2012) which, amongst other things, together seek to secure development which protects and enhances the landscape, provides adequate and well-designed off-street parking and manoeuvring space, includes appropriate waste-recycling facilities and be arranged so that the amenity of existing and future occupants is not harmed.

I have also had due regard to the Trafford Design Code Supplementary Planning Document 7 (September 2024) which adds to my conclusions in this respect.

The appellant has suggested that the wider site may become an independent living scheme in the future, the proposed development would be beneficial as an office or carer accommodation and that approaches have been made for various alternative schemes. However, I must consider the proposal before me and as such this does not lead me to an alternative conclusion.

My attention has been drawn to previous incidents of anti-social behaviour within the shared rear amenity space due to the open nature of the shared driveway and yard area. The appellant proposes to erect a gate within the shared yard to seek to increase security for the existing and future occupiers. However, limited details of the gate have been provided, and in any event, this has not been determinative in my decision making.

The appellant asserts that the proposal would result in acceptable amenity for future occupiers with regard to outlook, daylight, privacy, noise and odour and that there would be no adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. Furthermore, that there would be no impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area or on any heritage assets. However, these are neutral matters which do not weigh in favour of allowing the appeal.

I have found that the scheme would result in unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers. It would therefore not accord with the development plan as a whole and this is a matter that counts significantly against the scheme.

However, the Council confirm that it cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The Council is only able to demonstrate a 4.7 year supply which represents a moderate undersupply. Therefore, given that I have concluded that the proposal would be tantamount to providing an independent new dwelling, the presumption in favour of sustainable development as contained within paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged. This requires that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal would make a modest but worthwhile contribution to housing supply in a sustainable location with a good level of infrastructure. The proposal would also be designed to meet the needs of all users with regard to accessibility. There would be associated economic benefits during the period of construction and once occupied along with some environmental benefits through improved energy efficiency. However, as only a single unit of accommodation is proposed, I attribute the collective benefits limited weight in favour of approval. Nevertheless, I find that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission for the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.