Appeal 6004814

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 25/0380 for 1) change of use of building from 4 no. self-contained residential flats to 1 no. residential dwelling; 2) external alterations to building to support change of use including replacement of windows, removal of external access stairs, construction of open porch to front, removal of rear dormer, and formation of patio area to rear; 3) formation of vehicle access to [site address] and parking area; 4) erection of residential annex in rear garden following demolition of existing garage fronting [address] at [site address] , [site address] , [name], [postcode] granted on 24 December 2025 by Fylde Borough Council, is varied by deleting condition 8 and substituting for it the following condition:

The residential annex hereby approved shall only be occupied as part of the main residential use of the dwelling known as 41 [site address] , Lytham [site address] , Lancashire, [postcode] and shall not be sold, sublet or otherwise occupied independently of the main dwelling as a separate unit of residential or other accommodation.

An application for costs was made by [name] on behalf of Virtual Living Ltd against Fylde Borough Council, and this is the subject of a separate decision.

While the appeal is allowed, this is because I have amended the wording of the condition previously imposed. However, the condition remains broadly intact.

Planning permission was granted for various forms of development including the erection of a residential annex in the rear garden. The Council considers the condition to be necessary to preserve the character and appearance of the area and to achieve a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers. The appellant, however, objects to the requirement and wording of the condition as they consider it to be unnecessary, imprecise, unenforceable, unreasonable, not relevant to planning and not relevant to the development.

While the appellant still seeks to use the annex for ancillary accommodation, they propose that the condition be removed or alternatively replaced with an amended condition that omits reference to single family purposes and subletting.

The main issue is therefore the effect that removing or varying the condition would have on the character and appearance of the area and on the living conditions of existing and future occupiers.

The appeal site comprises a 3-storey semi-detached property and its gardens. From my visit, and following the granting of the above planning permission, the property is currently being converted from 4 flats into a single dwelling. The property is sited within a residential area, characterised by large Victorian and Edwardian buildings with large frontages and rear gardens along with more recent apartment blocks within the vicinity.

This appeal relates to the proposed detached 2-storey outbuilding to be sited within the rear garden. This would also be accessed direct from the rear [address] and would comprise a single garage and home-office on the ground floor, with a bathroom and double bedroom on the first floor. The appellant seeks to either remove the condition in its entirety or to vary the wording to delete references to occupation for “single family purposes” and the restriction on subletting.

The evidence shows that the scheme originally sought permission for an independent dwelling, later amended to ancillary accommodation following discussions with the Council. While several design features and characteristics indicate the ancillary nature of the structure, the annex would nonetheless be physically capable of being occupied independently, offering facilities for day-to-day private living some distance from the main dwelling, with a separate access and parking area. The condition was therefore imposed to ensure that the annex remain functionally tied to the main dwelling.

Although the site was formerly in use as four flats, and the proposal would reduce the overall intensity of occupation, the introduction of independent living accommodation fronting [address] would nonetheless harm the character and appearance of the area, which is part of the [site address] Conservation Area. This would result from an uncharacteristic active frontage within a street scene characterised by ancillary and subordinate uses.

In addition, the design amendments secured during the application process, including repositioned dormers and removal of obscure glazing, were predicated on the annex being occupied by individuals with a close relationship to the main household, where such levels of privacy would be acceptable. Independent occupation of the annex would give rise to unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy between opposing habitable rooms, and would result in substandard amenity provision, including reduced or absent garden space.

I’m therefore satisfied that a condition restricting the use of the annex to ancillary accommodation, or that which is part and parcel of the main dwelling, is reasonable and necessary.

However, the restriction on its use to “single family purposes” is ambiguous as a description. Although submitted correspondence with the Council gives examples of users which may fall within this category, in assessing this element of the condition against the relevant six tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and advice within the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), it is not sufficiently precise or enforceable. The users described by the Council, including family members or guests staying in the annex, would fall within its use as part of the main dwelling. This element of the condition should therefore be omitted.

Tenanted subletting on both short-term or long-term tenancies would introduce unconnected occupiers into the annex. While some tenanted occupation may fall within ancillary uses, in this case, given the detached position of the annex, its independent access, and the facilities available, tenanted occupation would result in physical and functional independence of the annex from the main dwelling, resulting in the harms outlined above. Accordingly, the inclusion of a restriction on subletting is reasonable and necessary in this instance. I also see no reason why such a condition would be unenforceable.

I have given due consideration to the evidence demonstrating the Council’s approach to development at 43 [site address] (No 43), and assessed it accordingly as a material consideration. Notwithstanding that this relates to ancillary living accommodation at the rear of a neighbouring property, there is no substantive evidence to show that the development in this case shared a similar detached relationship with the main dwelling as that at No 41. The Council’s use of conditions in that instance therefore has little bearing on my decision in this case, which I have assessed on its own merits.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that removing or varying the condition as suggested by the appellant would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of existing and future occupiers, in conflict with Policy GD7 and Policy H2 of the Fylde Local Plan (incorporating [name]). Taken together, amongst other matters, these policies seek to protect residential amenity, ensure appropriate site layout and maintain the character of the local area. However, for my reasons above, it is not necessary in this case for the condition to restrict the use to “single family purposes”.

I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the planning application, including its consideration of objector comments. However, this does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal. Similarly, the Councils approach to enforcement at No 43 has not had a bearing on my decision in this case.

The appellant asserts that the Council has incorrectly referred to the Government’s Circular 11/95: Use of conditions in planning permission. This publication is no longer extant, having been replaced by the Framework and PPG. These confirm that conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. As these tests mirror those previously set out in Circular 11/95, reference to that document has not been determinative in my

The appellant also contends that the restrictive nature of the condition would devalue the property, on the basis that the annex may not achieve its optimum viable use and could remain vacant in the absence of a suitable occupant. However, the planning system does not exist to protect private interests such as the value of property, and this has not therefore altered my conclusions.

[name] have concluded that a condition to restrict the use and occupancy of the annex is reasonable and necessary, but that “single family purposes” is not sufficiently precise or enforceable, I will replace the disputed condition with one that omits this term. This condition is necessary to preserve the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of existing and future occupiers.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the planning permission should be varied as set out in the formal decision.