Appeal 6004536

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal proposal is located within the curtilage of the host property, [site address] , a Grade II Listed Building. It is also adjacent to several other Grade II Listed Buildings and is situated within the [site address] Conservation Area (CA). I am therefore mindful of the statutory duties placed on decision-makers by sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings, and to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of conservation areas respectively.

During the application, revised drawings were submitted which significantly changed the scope of the proposal. The Council determined the application based on the amended drawings, and I have done the same within the appeal.

The main issues are: • whether in land use principle, the development would constitute an appropriate form of development, and • whether the proposal would provide adequate parking and accessibility for occupiers to avoid highway safety impacts, and • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the local area, bearing in mind the special attention that should be paid to the desirability of preserving the setting of the nearby [name] listed buildings, and the extent to which it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area.

The appeal proposal consists of the erection of a pitched roof building within the rear garden of the host dwelling, No. [site address] (No.55). It would take the form of a three-bay structure. At ground level, one bay, closest to the main dwelling, would provide storage facilities enclosed by two large, hinged doors. The central bay would provide open storage, whilst the third bay would be enclosed providing lounge facilities, together with stair access to accommodation within the upper floor. This upper floor accommodation would include an open plan kitchen and dining area, a bedroom area and en-suite bathing facilities, all contained within the roof slope. The accommodation would be lit and ventilated by two pitched roof dormer windows, located on the roof slope of the principal east-facing elevation.

The proposal would therefore represent an entirely detached residential annexe together with storage areas. It would be located at the furthest point in the garden from the main dwelling, with storage areas closest to the main dwelling. The residential accommodation would therefore be located at the furthest point from the main dwelling, within the residential curtilage.

The application drawings do not indicate any footpath links between the proposed annexe and the main dwelling, nor were any footpaths or other means of access from the main dwelling to the garden area evident at my visit. Due to the topography of the land, the ground floor level of the proposed annexe would be situated at a significantly raised level to that of the main dwelling. This would necessitate stepped access between the two elements of accommodation.

The appellant has suggested that the purpose of the appeal proposal is to provide accommodation for two elderly parents who need full time care. The proposal subsequently being a teenage pad or entertainment space in future, when this initial use is no longer required.

The Council consider that the combination of the extent of self-contained accommodation provided, the distance between the annexe and the main dwelling, and the ability to access the annexe independently of the main dwelling, strengthens the case for the annexe being a separate dwelling unit.

Legal precedent1 has established that notwithstanding the extent of self-contained accommodation, the provision of primary living accommodation within an annexe is part and parcel of the existing dwelling. However, the judge considered that in each case it would be a matter of fact and degree. In that case whilst the accommodation provided the occupier with the facilities of a self-contained unit, it was intended to function as an annexe, with the occupier sharing her living activity in company with the family in the main dwelling. There is no evidence before me that this is proposed in this case.

The definition of a separate dwellinghouse has been clarified in another [address] judgement2, in which the judge considered, that the distinctive characteristic of a dwellinghouse, is its ability to afford to those who use it, the facilities required for day-to-day private domestic existence. 1 [name] v SSE & White (1992) 2 [name] v SSE & O’Brien [1982] 47 P&CR 142; [1983] JPL 307

The proposal makes no provision for vehicular access or parking for use by future occupiers, but the host dwelling does not have its own off-street parking in any case. Therefore, both the host dwelling and future occupiers of the appeal proposal would need to rely on on-street parking, which was available at my visit.

The host dwelling is a semi-detached property, attached to its neighbouring Grade II Listed Building at No.57 [site address] (No.57) to the east, but is detached from the adjacent Grade II Listed Buildings at No.54 [site address] (No.54) and [address] to its west. It is separated from No.54 and [address] by a tapering gap of between 2.1 metres and 2.5 metres, but with overhanging eaves from the roofs of the host dwelling, No.54 and [address] protruding into this gap, the effective clearance further reduced by the rising ground levels.

Whilst this restricted width, and the telegraph pole within this gap adjacent to the rear of the public footpath, would substantially preclude the introduction of a useable vehicular access, there would be sufficient space for pedestrian access. This would allow future occupiers to access the appeal proposal, via the host dwelling’s garden from the public footpath, independently of the main dwelling itself.

Similarly, the appeal drawings do not define any specific external amenity space for use of the occupiers of the annexe. Nor is there any information submitted within the Design and Access Heritage Statement submitted with the application, which defines the extent of external amenity space sharing or separation. Accordingly, it has not been demonstrated whether the intention is for occupiers of the annexe to share the use of the host dwelling’s garden, or if future sub-division will take place.

Having examined the evidence submitted, the design of the appeal proposal would seem to give more importance to the storage facilities than the provision of additional residential accommodation. Given that the identified purpose of the proposal, was to provide residential accommodation for elderly parents requiring care, the location of the accommodation, at the furthest accessible point from the main dwelling, and with most of the accommodation at first floor, with potential accessibility issues for the elderly, seems to be at odds with this stated purpose.

Further, due to the combination of the extent of self-contained accommodation proposed, the availability of separate private external amenity space, and the ability to access the proposed annexe accommodation independently of the host dwelling, it has not been demonstrated that occupiers of the proposed annexe would have any reliance on No.55 for day-to-day living. It would, therefore, be functionally, visually and physically independent from the main dwelling, capable of operating as a separate dwelling. The creation of a separate dwelling is not permitted under a Householder Planning Application process.

For the above reasons, I find the proposal would conflict with Policy CP57 (i and iii) of the [name] (2015), [name] of the [name] and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which require, among other things, development to be of high quality design that respects local character and which integrates with its surroundings.

The originally submitted drawings identified two parking spaces within the rear garden of the host dwelling to the south of the proposed annexe, taking their access from the highway via the gap between the host dwelling and No.54.

The Highways Authority considered this access would not provide adequate visibility splays for vehicles exiting the site, the closeness of the property at No.54 to the rear of the public footpath, effectively precluding visibility in a westerly direction, for drivers of vehicles exiting the site. It would also provide pedestrians using the public footpath with inadequate visibility of vehicles exiting the appeal site, with consequent risks to highway safety for both vehicle drivers and pedestrians.

The amended drawings have removed these parking spaces. The appeal before me therefore makes no provision for on-site parking. The appeal drawings do not indicate on-site parking, and there is no new vehicular access proposed to be created, and therefore no resulting visibility splay issues. Accordingly, the risks to vehicular and pedestrian highway safety have also diminished.

However, the appeal proposal would increase the residential accommodation on the appeal site, were the appeal allowed as an annexe ancillary to the host dwelling. However, the host dwelling does not have any off-road parking provision; it relies solely on on-street parking. Accordingly, the additional parking space required to meet the Local Transport Plan standards for the additional 1-bedroom dwelling equivalent created by the appeal proposal, would also need to be provided by on-street parking.

At the time of my visit, there was sufficient on-street parking available within the area to accommodate the additional parking space. Whilst this is a snapshot in time, the availability of space was such that I am satisfied that the additional space required by the proposal could be adequately accommodated.

Paragraph 116 of the Framework advises that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds, if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. [name] find there would not be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, then the appeal proposal should not be refused on highways grounds.

For the above reasons, I find the proposal would accord with Policies CP57 (xiv) and 61 of the [name] (2015), the Wiltshire Local Transport Plan and paragraph 115 of the Framework, which require, among other things, development to be safely accessed and not to have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The appeal proposal is located within the L-shaped rear garden of No.55. The appeal annexe is proposed to be located within the return of the L-shape, such that it would sit behind the shared rear boundary with the adjacent [address] property, and substantially out-with the main body of the garden of the host property, which fronts onto the B4192 highway that runs through the village.

The host dwelling, No.55, occupies a site on the north side of the B4192, roughly at the centre of the village. The majority of the village is included with the CA, which contains several Listed Buildings, most of which occupy positions on the north side of the main road, including the buildings at No.54 and [address] and No.57 immediately to the east and west of the appeal property, together with No.52 and [address], which lie beyond. The appeal site therefore sits within, and contributes to, the settings of these Listed Buildings.

The CA derives its significance, insofar as it relates to this appeal, from [site address] ’s origins as a historic rural agricultural village on the north bank of the [name]. It has Anglo-Saxon origins, with surviving properties with elements that date from as early as the 15th century onwards. There are isolated timber frame constructions within cores of properties which have had later additions or renovations. In the main, properties consist of red-brick walls, with a predominance of Flemish bond employed and with vitrified blue banding and knapped flint panels, under thatched or clay tiled roofs. Red brick walls under red-brown pitched tiled roofs predominates in the later 18th century and Victorian period properties.

The B4192 runs through the length of the village, with properties ranged in a linear pattern along its northern and southern sides. Properties follow a familiar palette of materials, but with great variation in their architectural detail, orientation and positioning relative to the road. There is a resultant variation in the boundary treatments, ranging from open, planted garden frontages, high or low hedges, high brickwork and knapped flint stone boundary walls and timber picket fences.

Properties to the northern side of the road have more of a tendency towards being closer to the road, which has a continuous public footpath running along it. The properties on the southern side of the road, tend to be set back from their boundaries to varying degrees behind a wider grass verge, and with variation in presence and width of footpaths, and the set back from the rear of the verge to the principal elevation of individual properties. The properties at the central section of the village on the southern side of the road also tend to be later properties, though they tend to be older, as you travel further east, out of the village.

This wide verge and the variation in setback, results in a more open feel to the southern side of the road. The presence of established mature trees and hedges, such as those present diagonally opposite the appeal property, lend a verdant, long established, rural character to the CA and the village.

The appeal property is a Grade II Listed, semi-detached property, part of an 18th Century bilaterally symmetrical pair of cottages, with a later 19th Century addition to its west. The central cottage and extended cottage being converted to a single dwelling in 1968. The 18th Century sections of the properties are red brick with knapped flint panel inserts to their walls under a thatched roof. The 19th Century section is red brick under a thatched roof. Given the above, I find that the significance of the listed buildings at No.55 and No.57 and their setting, insofar as it relates to this appeal, is derived partly from the quality of their architectural detail, and partly from their historical and social significance within the village.

The properties at No.54, [address] and No.52 are also of 18th Century origin, with 19th Century and later alterations and additions, sharing much of the material palette with No.55, having been constructed at similar timeframes. However, they demonstrate variation in the details employed, giving each of them their own identity. I find that the significance of these listed buildings and their setting, insofar as it relates to this appeal, is derived partly from the quality of their architectural detail, and partly from their historical and social significance within the village.

The appeal proposal would introduce a tiled pitched roof and timber clad single storey structure into the rear garden of No.55. However, its accommodation in its roof space would be provided with natural light and ventilation via two large dormer windows, which would be prominent in the context of the size of the building.

Whilst the appeal proposal would be located to the rear of No.55, it would be visible in views from the public realm on the B4192, both in the gaps between No.52 and No.54, where it would be clearly visible behind [address], despite the presence of some hedge features, and in the gap between No.54 and No.55. It would also be visible, particularly in winter months when leaves were lost from trees, in views from in front of [address] looking across the [name], and from the bottom of [address] looking across the rear garden of [address].

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and would fail to preserve the setting of the nearby Listed Buildings. It therefore harms their significance as designated heritage assets.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to their conservation. Paragraph 213 of the Framework goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets, or from development within their setting and that this should have a clear and convincing justification.

[name] have found unjustified harm to the CA, and to the setting of the Listed Buildings, for the purposes of the Framework, I would assess these harms as being less than substantial harm, with the level of harm being at the lower end of this category. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires this harm to be weighed against any public benefits of the development.

The development would provide economic benefit during its construction, and further economic benefit from the long-term occupation of the additional accommodation. The proposal would also provide additional accommodation for the care of the appellants elderly relatives.

I find that these are primarily private benefits for the appellants, with any public benefit being moderate. I have no convincing evidence otherwise, of public benefits that would outweigh the harm I have found to the CA and the setting of the listed buildings, which result from the appeal development, and which the Framework requires me to assign great weight.

Having regard to my duties under the Act, I conclude that the appeal development would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the CA or the setting of the Grade II Listed Buildings at [address], No.57, No.55, No.54, [address] or No.52 as designated heritage assets.

It follows therefore, that I find the appeal development is contrary to Policies CP57 and CP58 of the [name] (2015), Sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990 and Chapter 16 of the Framework. These require, among other things, that development is of a high quality of design, that is sensitive to the distinctive historic or architectural character of the area, and for great weight to be given to the conservation of heritage assets.

The appeal site is located within the North Wessex Downs National Landscape (NL). Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA) amended the duty placed on relevant authorities required by the Countryside and Right of Way Act 2000 (CRoW Act), requiring relevant authorities and decision makers to ‘seek to further’ the statutory purposes of protected landscapes, of which the North Wessex Downs NL is one. It requires, as far as is reasonably practical, relevant authorities to seek to avoid harm and to contribute to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty, special qualities and key characteristics of [name].

Paragraph 189 of the Framework requires great weight to be given to protecting the scenic beauty of NL’s. However, having regard to my duties under the LURA and [name], the appeal proposal is located within the built-up heart of the village. It would represent development within the curtilage of an existing residential dwelling, which is closely surrounded by a group of other such residential dwellings and with mature trees within its setting. Accordingly, I find this would screen much of the appeal proposal from any wider landscape views. I therefore judge the appeal proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the scenic beauty of the wider North Wessex Downs NL, and would therefore conserve its natural beauty, special qualities and key characteristics.

Whilst the appellant cites the approval3 of a residential annexe in the garden of the adjoining property to the north, as precedence for the appeal proposal, each application, and therefore appeal, should be considered on its own merits. The adjacent annexe has greater separation distances from Listed Buildings, and I find its form is less prominent than that proposed in this appeal, particularly the dormer windows proposed to its east facing roof slope, which would make it more visually prominent, and less subservient to the host dwelling.

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The evidence before me indicates that the proposed annexe is for elderly relatives to move into. Notwithstanding this important consideration, it does not follow from the PSED that the appeal should succeed. Dismissing the appeal would mean that the appellant would be likely to have to consider other options for meeting their accommodation needs. There is no evidence before me to demonstrate that the appeal would be the only means by which such needs may be reasonably met. Accordingly, dismissing the appeal would be a proportionate response given the identified harms I have found.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal development would be contrary to the development plan, read as a whole, and that there are no material considerations that would justify determining other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.