Appeal 6004004

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description on the application form differs to the decision notice. However, I am satisfied that the original description accurately describes the appeal development and is therefore reflected above.

The main issues are a) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and b) the principle of the proposed development with specific regard to its intended use.

The appeal site is a semi-detached two storey dwelling on a corner plot at the junction of Stonebridge Park and [address]. The surrounding dwellings display strongly unifying features which include forward projecting gables with decorative headers, painted render finishes in very similar colours and offset arch headered front doors. The appeal building presents to two street scenes, with the gable feature thereon replicated for [address]. This maintains a coherent period appearance to both streets which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed conversion of the garage would only be seen on [address] and given its existing modest scale, siting and limited external changes against the host dwelling would remain to be seen as being a subservient feature ancillary or incidental to the host building. The principle of the conversion of the garage into a habitable space along with the window and link is unobjectionable in regard to this

Notwithstanding the above, and whilst the annexe would only be seen on [address], the glazed conservatory would be an awkward interruption in the consistency of the street scene. This might only be in square on views, but the incongruous visual effect of the conservatory element would be exacerbated by its materials, external finish and unconventional intersection with the roof of the garage.

With the above in mind, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area, as such, there would be conflict with Policy BCS21 of the [name] (BCS) 2011, Policies DM21, DM26, DM27 and DM30 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Local Plan (LP) 2014, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the policy guidance document Supplementary Planning Document 2. Together, these seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard.

The converted garage would consist of a small kitchen area, a space for a bed/seating area and a small bathroom. Whilst there would be a physical link by form of the conservatory between the host dwelling and the annexe, it could be accessed separately from the dwelling. It is not uncommon for annexe buildings to be detached from the main building or have a separate entrance but have some reliance on their host. I appreciate that it has the facilities to not require access to the main dwelling, however, they would share the same access, garden and parking. Moreover, the future occupant of the annexe would be a family member that would receive support from the residents of the main property. It would be capable of being used independently, however that is not what has been applied for. Any use as an independent dwelling would require a separate planning permission.

The appeal scheme was submitted as a householder planning application. I am aware of the interpretation of such in Part 1.2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (DMPO). Nevertheless, the Council considered the scheme as a householder application and made a decision accordingly. Hence the subsequent appeal being considered through the householder appeals service. Essentially, and taking into account the above, there is nothing sufficiently compelling to suggest that the scheme would not be for the use intended by the appellant.

The Council has referred to the development plan, but this is in terms of subserviency which is a matter of character and appearance which has been dealt with in the earlier main issue. Resultantly, I see no conflict with the DMPO. The principle of the proposed development would therefore, having regard to the evidence presented, be acceptable.

I understand that the house must be adapted for the appellants disabled dependent. I have been provided limited information on this need; however, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty set out under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. I am aware that disability is a protected characteristic thereunder. The evidence does not however suggest that the scheme is wholly reliant on the adaptations with specific regard to the conservatory link and that it should be designed in this way to support the dependent.

The appellants have raised their concerns with the Council’s handling of the planning application. However, and having regard to the evidence presented, this is a matter for the main parties to determine outside of the planning appeal process, and I have not considered further.

The harm I have found to the character and appearance of the area and the associated development plan conflict are matters to which I ascribe substantial weight. This is not outweighed by the benefits in terms of eliminating discrimination against persons with the protected characteristics of disability. Dismissal of the appeal is thus a fair and proportionate approach in this particular case. I am also mindful of other material considerations advanced but, for the reasons I have set out above, these would not be worthy of such weight that they would indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore recommend the appeal be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.