Appeal 6004143

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the annexe would be ancillary or incidental to the main dwelling or a separate independent dwelling unit • the effects of the proposed development in relation to the character and appearance of the host property and wider area • the effects of the proposed development in relation to the living conditions of surrounding occupiers in terms of noise, disturbance and general activity.

The appeal site forms part of the garden area at the rear of a two-storey semi-detached dwelling on the south-west side of [address].

It is a matter of fact and degree as to whether or not the proposed development would be occupied as an annexe to provide ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling or an independent separate dwelling. In assessing this, it is necessary to consider whether the building could function as an annexe. The appellant has outlined that the annexe would provide ancillary living accommodation to meet the needs of the mother and the kitchen will be shared with the main dwellinghouse.

The proposed development involves the construction of a detached annexe with a kitchen and living area, bedroom and bathroom. Although the annexe is not physically attached to the rear of the main dwelling, the proposed building would be sited set back in a relatively large garden plot and within the curtilage of the main dwellinghouse.

Access to the annexe would be provided through the existing access to the main dwellinghouse and garden. However, it would be possible to provide a separate access into the garden through the front boundary. This would allow access to the annexe without any need to pass through the main dwelling. The submitted drawings show the proposed annexe would have all of the accommodation available for independent occupation separate from the main dwelling. It would also be detached and sited away from the main property, which together could further facilitate occupation independent of the main dwelling.

I have considered the appellant’s position that the proposal would fall within the definition of a residential annexe, as it would be within the same plot, with the same address and would be occupied by a family member. However, the layout of the annexe does not portray what would be expected to be an ancillary or incidental addition to the main dwelling. Whilst these incidental purposes are capable of including a wide range of uses, the Courts have held that they do not include primary residential accommodation required for day-to-day private domestic living, such as a kitchen.

The appeal statement submitted by the appellant lists a number of planning decisions taken by the Council for granny annexes and I have reviewed these cases. None of these examples appear to include provision for two new outbuildings. Some propose one outbuilding for use as a granny annexe and others appear to be for the conversion of existing parts of a dwellinghouse (for example, the conversion of an adjoining garage) or an extension to a dwellinghouse itself to accommodate a granny annexe. As such, the examples provided are all markedly different to the proposed development and I can give them limited weight in the consideration of this appeal, notably because this appeal proposes two separate outbuildings, rather than one single outbuilding.

Therefore, taken together the evidence suggests very strongly that, as a matter of fact and degree, what is proposed, on the balance of probabilities, would be able to function as a separate independent dwelling unit. Given the reasonable likelihood that the annexe building could be occupied as a separate independent dwelling unit, I do not consider that a planning condition requiring ancillary occupation of the annexe to address the unacceptable impacts of the development would be effective and enforceable in this case.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached dwellinghouse with a broadly triangular-shaped rear garden on a corner plot of [address]. There is a variation in ground levels between the site and some adjoining properties, with [address] to the east lying at a higher ground level than the site. Within the rear garden, a planted bed with plants, shrubs and trees is contained within a low retaining wall that runs alongside much of the boundary shared with [address] at a slightly higher level than most of the garden.

The two outbuildings proposed would be located towards the tapered end of the rear of the garden and would be similar in size to one another. Both would be positioned close to the boundary shared with the rear of properties on [address] (the western boundary of the site) but would differ in orientation. The layout of the proposed outbuildings appears to maximise the development footprint, with the annexe being positioned lengthways down the garden and the other outbuilding cutting across it widthways. In so doing, the outbuildings would fill much of the available space at this end of the garden, with little room for relief or manoeuvrability around them, particularly when considering the planted bed along one side. Indeed, it is unclear how the annexe will be reasonably accessed as the other outbuilding extends across the garden.

Consequently, the layout of the proposed development would lead to an incongruous and congested built form at the rear of the garden that would be out of keeping with the wider pattern of development. Although the presence of outbuildings or sheds may not be unusual nearby, the design of the proposed development would lead to two substantially sized outbuildings that would be sited close together and close to the boundaries shared with neighbouring properties, which together would have a crowded appearance. The development would appear as a proliferation of buildings resulting in harm to the character of the host property and wider area.

The appellant’s appeal statement and a number of plans identify two existing outbuildings on the site. However, at the time of my visit, these were not present. Even if they were, the pre-existing plans indicate that the outbuildings were used for storage or sheds, the layout differed to the proposed, and they appear to have smaller footprints than the proposed outbuildings. Even if outbuildings were currently on the site, I have considered this appeal on its own merits and they would have been unlikely to change my conclusion in relation to character and appearance.

As such, even if my conclusion on the first main issue is disputed, as a result of other material considerations in this case, the proposed development fails to deliver high quality design, respond sensitively to or enhance the local character and context, building form, patterns of development and scale of the existing context nor would it complement the character of the existing building. It follows, therefore, that the proposed development conflicts with Barnet Local Plan 2025 (BLP) Policies CDH01 and CDH05 as well as London Plan 2021 (LP) Policy D3.

I note that representations made on the planning application and the representation made in relation to this appeal raise concerns about loss of peace and an increase in noise and disturbance to the occupiers of nearby properties. Although the proposed outbuildings would result in comings and goings through the garden, there is not substantial evidence before me to indicate that the level of activity, noise or disturbance would materially exceed the current activity level in the garden given the scale of the proposal.

As such, I consider the introduction of the ancillary outbuildings would not lead to an unacceptable increase in noise, disturbance and disruption to neighbouring residents through increased coming and goings and associated general activity. It follows, therefore that I find no conflict with [name] CDH01, CDH05 and ECC02 and [name] D3 and D14 in this respect. In reaching a conclusion on this main issue, I have had regard to Barnet Council’s Sustainable Design and [name] (2016) and Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016). However, I find no conflict with these documents in relation to the living conditions for surrounding occupiers due to the scale and nature of the proposed development.

Amongst other points, a representation made in relation to the appeal raises concerns relating to surface water issues. Similarly, three representations were received in relation to the planning application that raise additional matters relating to loss of sunlight and other matters. As the appeal is dismissed, I have not interrogated these concerns in detail where they do not relate directly to the main issues discussed previously.

Similarly, the highways authority provided comments on the planning application in relation to highways and included a request for planning conditions, should the appeal be allowed. Although the recommended conditions may make the proposed development acceptable in relation to highway matters, they do not overcome the policy conflicts in relation to the main issues. It follows also that as the appeal is dismissed, I have not addressed the acceptability of the conditions recommended, but had the appeal been allowed with conditions, conditions would need to meet the tests for conditions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework at paragraph 57 and the supporting Planning Practice Guidance.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. As such, the appeal is dismissed.