Appeal 6003468

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a two storey replacement dwelling and outbuilding at [site address] , [site address] , Warrington [postcode] without compliance with the conditions previously imposed on planning permission Ref 22/80469/FUL, dated 26 May 2023, but subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The [site address] complex includes the outbuilding subject of this appeal and its host dwelling (collectively Plot 1), a redeveloped former farmhouse (Plot 2), single storey dwelling replacing the former milking parlour (Plot 3) and replacement agricultural building (Plot 4).

Planning permission had been previously refused for a planning application (ref 21/78865/FUL) relating to all 4 plots and that included an annex outbuilding at Plot 1. There was at that time a certificate of lawfulness (ref 21/77963/CLUDP) confirming, among other things, that an outbuilding could be constructed at Plot 1 under permitted development rights. Nevertheless, the planning application was refused in part on grounds that the annex would be a new dwelling and inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Planning permissions were subsequently granted individually for each of the plots. As approved (ref 22/80469/FUL), the Plot 1 incidental outbuilding comprises a double garage, single garage and large garden room. However, although it is the same dimensions and it provides the double garage, the appeal outbuilding has not been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Instead of the single garage and garden room, it provides around 84sqm of living accommodation with open plan kitchen and living area, 2 bedrooms, bathroom and utility room. External openings also differ and it has an outdoor seating area.

The appeal seeks to vary conditions No 2 (approved plans) and No 17 (incidental outbuilding) imposed on the planning permission in order to retain the development that has been implemented and which is illustrated on the submitted plans.

The main issues are: i) Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; ii) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and the openness of the Green Belt; iii) Whether the proposal would be an independent dwellinghouse; iv) Whether the proposal would provide an adequate standard of living conditions for future residential occupiers, with particular regard to overlooking and privacy; and v) Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The [site address] complex comprises several dwellings and building following the redevelopment of an isolated former farmstead. It is set back from [site address] and surrounded by open countryside. It is in the Green Belt.

The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and it should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Policy GP-P9 of the Places of Everyone Joint Development Plan Document 2022 to 2039 [name] 2024 (the PfE) aims to ensure the beneficial use of the Green Belt without harm to its openness, permanence or its ability to serve its five purposes. Policy GB1 of the Salford Local Plan: Development Management Policies and [name] 2023 (the LP) requires that the Green Belt is afforded strong protection in accordance with national planning policy.

The appeal relates to a previously approved outbuilding which has been constructed. Although not in accordance with the approved plans, the external changes are minor alterations to openings. Its siting, scale and appearance are substantially similar to the approved scheme. There are no disproportionate additions over and above the size of the originally approved building. The outbuilding is of permanent and substantial construction.

While the outbuilding may have been constructed as annex accommodation, and not built as approved and then converted, to all intents and purposes it appears to be the conversion or re-use of the approved outbuilding rather than the construction of a materially different new building. In this regard, Framework paragraph 154h)iv set out that the re-use of buildings that are of permanent and substantial construction is not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

The proposal does not introduce new built form where there was none previously approved. The alterations to openings do not result a loss of openness of the Green Belt. While its use as primary residential accommodation may result in more frequent activity, this is in the context of an existing residential garden, large host dwelling and wider residential building group.

The outbuilding is in close proximity to the Plot 1 dwelling but the visual and physical relationship between the annex outbuilding and its surroundings is little different to the approved situation. The [site address] building complex is deeply set back from the road and the annex is set back behind Plot 1 and viewed as part of the building group. Although large, the annex outbuilding is single storey and subordinate in height and scale to its 2 storey host. In wider views, the annex outbuilding does not result in any greater adverse impact on character and appearance, or materially different impact on the openness of the Green Belt, compared to the approved outbuilding.

The Council officer report for the Plot 1 planning permission notes that the scale, height, design and general appearance of that scheme, including the outbuilding, would be broadly in keeping with the rural character of the area. Moreover, it was considered to be appropriate in its form and its materials and it would cause no harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Taking into account the minor changes to openings, I see no reason why the proposal would render the building suddenly discordant or out of scale with its surroundings.

Moreover, if the appeal should fail, the previously approved outbuilding would be a valid fallback position. Given the substantial similarities, I have no reason to think that the outbuilding could not be converted in accordance with the approved plans. As the fallback position is a realistic prospect at this site, and it would not harm the character and appearance of the area, I am satisfied that it provides a justification for the substantially similar appeal outbuilding.

I have also had regard to the five Green Belt purposes set out in paragraph 143 of the Framework. The proposal does not contribute to the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas nor the merging of neighbouring towns. The outbuilding is in a residential building group and it does not encroach into the countryside. It does not affect the setting of a historic town nor discourage urban regeneration. As such, I find no conflict with the Green Belt purposes.

Therefore, I conclude that the appeal scheme meets the exception in Framework paragraph 154h)iv. It is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Accordingly, it does not conflict with the aims of PfE policy GP-P9, LP policy GB1 or the policies in the Framework that protect the Green Belt.

The annex is generously proportioned and, with 2 bedrooms, meets the nationally described space standards for a single storey dwelling suitable for 4 persons. It provides all of the facilities required for day-to-day private domestic existence. Nevertheless, case law has established that self-contained accommodation would not necessarily become a separate planning unit from the main dwelling. In each case it will be a matter of fact and degree.

The annex can be accessed through the garden of Plot 1, but its main entrance opens onto the internal road that serves all plots. As such, it can be accessed directly without going via the host dwelling or through its garden. However, the outbuilding is sited very close to the rear of the host dwelling. The rear and side elevations of the annex face and open into, and it shares, the garden of its host. The evidence indicates that it also shares services and utilities with its host.

I am aware that the annex is not very much smaller in terms of floorspace than the single storey dwelling at Plot 3. However, its host is the Plot 1 dwelling and this is a substantial 4 bed family home set in a large plot. Taking into account its height, scale and siting, the annex outbuilding is subservient to its host.

The annex is occupied by the appellants’ grandmother, who has significant medical conditions and limited mobility. The annex allows her to live as independently as she can, but with support and care from her family who occupy the Plot 1, 2 and 3 dwellings at [site address] . Based on the intergenerational living and interdependence between the grandmother and her family, I am satisfied that there is currently no functionally separate household within the annex.

The close relationship between the host dwelling and the annex means that not only is there convenient access between the two, but there is also mutual overlooking. Taking into account the familial relationship between the grandmother in the annex and the occupiers of Plot 1, this overlooking and loss of privacy is acceptable and indeed it may be desirable given the needs of the grandmother. However, I agree with the Council that the overly close relationship between the buildings would not provide an acceptable standard of residential amenity for the occupiers of either building if the annex was occupied independent of Plot 1.

I understand the Council’s concerns in relation to the creation of a new unit of residential accommodation in this location. However, the development is annex accommodation within the garden of Plot 1. There is no proposal before me to create an additional unit of residential accommodation or to subdivide the garden to create a separate curtilage for the annex, as there had been in the earlier refused application. Neither the annex nor its host would provide a satisfactory standard of residential amenity if the annex was occupied as a separate residential dwelling. There is no reason in law why the annex accommodation should become a separate planning unit either now or in the future.

Moreover, if there was a future material change of use to create a separate dwelling, then another grant of permission would be required, and the building or use would be at risk of enforcement action if such permission is not granted. In reaching a decision on any such future proposal, the Council could take into account the unsatisfactory standard of residential amenity for separate households.

I note the Council’s concerns that it would be difficult to monitor and enforce the use of the annex. However, there is little evidence that the use of the annex could not be monitored and enforced in the same way as any other residential annex. Moreover, it would not be unreasonable to stipulate that the annex shall not be separated from the residential use of Plot 1, when it is proposed as an annex for an elderly relative and it would not in any case provide satisfactory residential amenity for independent occupation.

Therefore, based on the evidence before me, I conclude that the appeal scheme is a residential annex and it is not a separate residential unit. Accordingly, I find no conflict with the policies cited in the Council’s decision notice in relation to the protection of the Green Belt, design, layout and amenity.

There is close overlooking and loss of privacy between the Plot 1 dwelling and its annex outbuilding, having regard to habitable room windows and the shared garden. As noted above, the close proximity of the annex to its host and the absence of private outdoor space would result in an unsatisfactory standard of residential amenity if the annex was occupied independently by a separate household to the Plot 1 dwelling. However, as the annex is not a separate unit of residential accommodation, I find that the overly close relationship and otherwise substandard level of residential amenity would be acceptable.

Therefore, on the basis of its residential annex use, I find that the appeal scheme provides satisfactory living conditions and does not conflict with the residential amenity aims of LP policies including D4 and D5.

[name] have found that the appeal scheme is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt and it would not harm openness or conflict with the Green Belt purposes, it is not necessary for me to consider whether there are any other considerations such as could amount to very special circumstances

Decision notices for the grant of permission under Section 73 restate conditions imposed on earlier permissions that continue to have effect as well as imposing any necessary new or amended conditions. In this regard, the Council has provided a commentary on the conditions imposed on the earlier permission and a list of suggested conditions in the event the appeal is allowed. I have considered these against the tests for conditions set out in the Framework.

As the development has been implemented, a condition specifying the time limits is not necessary. I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans however, in the interests of certainty. I have not reimposed condition no 18 (the curtilage of the dwellinghouse) because this plan is already specified under condition no 1 (the approved plans).

Based on the evidence, pre-commencement and construction conditions are no longer relevant. These include condition no 3 (construction method statement), condition no 4 (construction watching brief for contamination), condition no 5 (invasive species), condition no 6 (materials), condition nos 7 and 8 (tree protection), condition no 9 (landscaping), condition no 10 (reasonable avoidance measures for amphibians) and condition no 13 (site levels).

A revised condition no 11 (ecological enhancement) is necessary to secure retention of the measures that have been implemented, in the interests of biodiversity. Condition no 12 (single storey flat roof not to be used as an outdoor area) remains necessary in the interests of residential amenity.

Condition no 14 requires vehicular access arrangements to be available prior to first use of the development, which has already occurred. I have therefore amended the wording to specify that the arrangements shall be retained, in the interests of the operation of the highway.

Condition no 15 relates to the approval of details and subsequent retention of approved boundaries and retaining walls. Although the development is occupied, the condition has not been discharged. Given the sensitive Green Belt location and previous concerns about boundary treatments, I have re-imposed a boundary treatment condition in the interests of visual amenity and Green Belt openness.

Condition no 16 removes permitted development rights within the curtilage of the dwelling. Paragraph 55 of the Framework tells us that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is a clear justification. In this case, taking into account the sensitivity of the location, the planning history of the appeal site and wider complex, and the nature of the development, I am satisfied that this condition is reasonably necessary in the interests of Green Belt openness and visual and residential amenity.

As noted, condition no 17 restricts the use of the outbuilding to purposes incidental to the dwellinghouse. I have imposed the Council’s suggested revised condition to ensure that the garage and annex remain respectively incidental and ancillary to the host dwelling, in the interests of the Green Belt and residential amenity.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted subject to conditions.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1822 PL 122 - Location Plan; 1822 PL 125 rev B - Proposed Site Plan; 1822 PL 111 rev H - Proposed Ground Floor Plan; 1822 PL 112 rev F - Proposed First Floor Plan; 1822 PL 113 rev C - Proposed Roof Plan; 1822 PL 114 rev E - [name]; 1822 PL 115 rev E - [name]; 1822 PL 210 rev G - Proposed Ground Floor Plan; 1822 PL 212 rev E - [name]; 1822 PL 213 rev E - [name]; 1822 PL 211 rev D - Proposed Roof Plan; 1822 PL 129 rev B - [name].

The scheme of [name] implemented in line with the Biodiversity Enhancement Plan (Tyrer Ecological Consultants Ltd, version 1.0, dated 5 October 2023), as approved under the discharge of condition application 23/82146/DISCON, shall be retained.

The flat roof of the single storey element close to the western boundary line shall not be used as balcony, roof terrace or outdoor amenity area.

The vehicle parking, servicing and other vehicular access arrangements shown on the approved plans to serve the development hereby permitted shall be retained for their intended purpose.

Within three months from the date of this decision, full details of the type, siting, design and materials to be used in the construction of boundaries, screens or retaining walls shall be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority and the approved structures shall have been erected in accordance with the approved details. The approved boundary structures shall thereafter be retained.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-acting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by virtue of Part 1 and Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be undertaken within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby permitted.

The parts of the outbuilding identified on drawing number ref 1822 PL 210 rev G (Proposed Ground Floor Plan) as (i) garage and storage shall remain incidental to the main dwelling, and (ii) the residential annex shall remain ancillary to the main dwelling at all times. The outbuilding, or any part of it, shall not be sold, sub-let, rented, subdivided or occupied as a separate or self-contained dwelling. End of Schedule