Appeal 6004774

In appeal A I have amended the description of the proposal to exclude the term “part retrospective”, which is not itself an act of development. The application forms in both cases indicate that the proposals have already been completed. Nevertheless, I must consider the appeals strictly on their own merits.

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for amended internal layouts, use of part first floor for ancillary granny flat and addition of door to front elevation at [site address] [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00847/FULH, and the plans submitted with it: IN/01, IN/02, IN/03, IN/04, IN/05, IN/06 and IN/07 and a location plan at a scale of 1:1250. Appeal B Ref: 6004774

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the use of existing annex for sleeping ancillary to the dwellinghouse at [site address] [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00848/FULH, and the plans submitted with it: WA/00, WA/02 [name], WA/03 [name], WA/04 [name] and a location plan at a scale of 1:1250. Appeal Decisions 6004560 & 6004774

The main issue in appeal A and B is whether the development has resulted in the creation of an independent dwelling.

Appeal A concerns part of the first floor of a semi-detached dwelling that is used as a granny flat. Appeal B relates to a detached outbuilding in the rear garden used as an annex. The Council is concerned that these each contain all the facilities necessary for independent living such as bedrooms, bathrooms and kitchens. The granny flat can be reached via a new front door that has already been installed and a staircase. The annex could also be reached via this front entrance and a back door to the garden. Due to these factors, the Council is concerned that the accommodation in each case could be used as a separate dwelling without any functional dependency on the rest of the property.

However, these are the type of facilities that would tend to be found in an annex or granny flat and are not necessarily indicative of a separate dwelling. It is necessary to consider how the accommodation functions. In each case the space would be occupied by a relative of the Appellant, resulting in a significant likelihood of meaningful interaction with the occupiers of the host dwelling due to significant comings and goings. There has been no subdivision of the rear garden so that its use would be shared. I saw at my site visit that it is not possible to reach the annex other than by entering the house from the street at the front.

At first floor level there is no direct access from the granny flat to the other part of the property. However, the ground floor corridor behind the new front entrance has an internal door that allows the granny flat and separate first floor accommodation to be reached from any part of the house. Consequently, the overall property has a reasonably permeable layout that does not unduly limit or restrict movement and potential interaction.

Occupiers of the annex, granny flat and other part of the overall building have access to facilities that include a workshop, gym, en-suite bathroom and bike storage. Together with the fairly close proximity of the granny flat, annex and other accommodation, the above factors further increase the degree of interaction likely to take place, resulting in a significant functional relationship.

In these circumstances accepting the appeals would not result in the creation of an independent dwelling. Moreover, the granny flat and annex would constitute ordinary living accommodation that is normally to be expected as part and parcel of a dwelling. In any event, there is no separate dwelling before me. If the granny flat or annex are not used as applied for, the plot is subdivided, or if there is a material change of use in the future to create an independent dwelling, then a separate grant of planning permission would be required. In these circumstances there would be a risk of enforcement action if such permission is not granted.

In the Council’s Residential Design Guide (RDG) it is indicated that proposals for conversions will need to ensure that a single entrance door is maintained. However, I saw at my site visit that there are a number of nearby properties with more than one front entrance so that the additional front door in Appeal A reflects these and has not resulted in any detrimental visual impact. Moreover, the plans for development approved in 2022 at the appeal site show three doors at the front, Appeal Decisions 6004560 & 6004774 including in the side of a single storey projection. This is consistent with the current appearance of the property. Because of these factors, appeal A should not be dismissed because of the creation of a new front entrance.

In the RDG it is indicated that stand-alone detached buildings are only likely to be acceptable in the gardens of properties where such buildings form part of the existing character of the area and are solely for the use and enjoyment of the occupants of the property. Given that this building was granted a Lawful Development Certificate and does not constitute an independent dwelling, the RDG does not provide a sound basis for rejecting appeal B.

There can be no harm to the character and appearance of the locality, or in relation to any other issue, from a new dwelling as none has been created. In these circumstances there is no need to consider whether alternative accommodation could be provided elsewhere in the property.

In consequence, there is compliance with Watford Local Plan 2021-2038 Policies QD6.2 and QD6.4 and the National Planning Policy Framework. Taken together and among other things, these seek high quality designs with functional and attractive buildings.

Taking account of all other matters raised, given the absence of any harm it is determined that the appeals succeed. Because the developments have already taken place there is no need to impose any conditions.