Appeal 6003573

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area; • whether the proposed development represents a residential annexe given its nature and relationship with the existing dwelling; and, • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to privacy and outlook.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey, brick-built end of terrace property, in an established suburban residential area. It is set back from the street, with an area to the side giving access to the rear garden. Houses in the surrounding streets are of a similar scale and nature. In common with the appeal property, houses to the south side of [address] have long rear gardens which fall away from the street frontage, predominantly enclosed by fences.

The proposed building would be a large, rendered utilitarian structure situated towards the rear of the back garden, set below the main dwelling. Although somewhat distant from the house it would fail to relate successfully to it, in terms of materials, fenestration pattern and detailing. Due to its location, it would not have an impact on the street scene, but would be an incongruous and poorly designed addition to the appeal site. It would be a dominant and discordant element within the rear amenity space which would be contrary to the suburban grain which characterises the area.

Although the proposal may maintain sufficient outdoor amenity for the residential development, the scale of the building allied to the introduction of a more intensive use to the rear of the building, would harm the character of the gardens to the rear of residential properties in the area.

For these reasons, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policy SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan, (the Development Plan) 2016, which seeks to deliver high quality design which integrates effectively with its surroundings and complements the character of an area. It is also contrary to the objectives of the [name] Planning Document, (the SPD) 2018, which similarly seeks to deliver high quality design.

In addition to meeting the general requirements relating to the design of extensions, the SPD advises that an annexe, for a dependent relative, should demonstrate dependency on the host property, with the form and layout such that the development could be used in future as part of the main residential property. Ancillary accommodation should only provide limited accommodation and it should share facilities with the main property (e.g. kitchens, outside amenity space, parking) and should be physically linked.

The proposed development would contain a shower within the bedroom area and the supporting documents indicate that it would also have a kitchen area. It would have an independent entrance to the host dwelling and a separate bin storage area.

No evidence has been provided to indicate that the annexe would be for a dependent relative; however, the absence of a toilet means that any occupant would be dependent on the host property for such facilities and the building could not function as a separate dwelling. Furthermore, if a material change of use were to occur in the future to create an independent dwelling, a separate grant of planning permission would be required, and the building would be at risk of enforcement action if such permission was not granted.

Whilst it would not be physically linked to the host dwelling, it would be functionally dependent upon it, and would therefore represent a residential annexe given its nature and relationship with the existing dwelling. [name] find no conflict with the overall objectives of the SPD in this regard and with SWDP21 of the

Given the topography, separation distances, and the single storey nature of the proposed building, it would not have an adverse impact on outlook and privacy from windows of surrounding houses, including those to [address]. It would also be set in from the shared boundaries with other gardens and would, therefore, not appear unduly overbearing.

The garden of the appeal site is enclosed by fences on two sides and a row of mature trees on the third side. There are no windows proposed on the side elevations of the annexe, and windows to the rear of the proposed building would face directly towards the high fence at the end of the garden. Any overlooking from the proposed annexe would be solely from openings to the front of the building. These would be limited to oblique views to the mid-point of the neighbouring garden and would be partially screened by the trees along the shared boundary, and would be very limited in nature.

For these reasons, the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties, with regards to privacy and outlook. Accordingly it I find no conflict with the objectives of the SPD and with SWDP21 of the Development Plan, which taken together seek to ensure that development does not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity.

Although not included as a reason for refusal on the Decision Notice, the Council had raised concerns regarding the lack of detail submitted with the application regarding parking provision and highway safety. The appellant asserts that the proposal would provide sufficient car parking for the development. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for the reasons set out in my decision, it is not necessary for me to consider this matter further.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a planning approval for an annexe building in the rear garden space in the area, but has provided no details of this case. I am, therefore, unable to attach any weight to this example.

[name] have found no conflict with the Development Plan with regards to the nature of the proposed development as a residential annexe or with regards to impacts on living conditions of neighbouring occupants, there would be harm to the character and appearance of the appeal site, and the surrounding area.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.