Appeal 6004895

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of new ancillary residential accommodation ([name]) in the grounds of Wighill following the demolition of two existing outbuildings (Poolhouse and Gardeners outbuilding) at Wighill, [site address] , [site address] , Surrey [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01929/HOU, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

A Fire Strategy Report and Archaeological Desk Based Assessment have been submitted with the appeal. These are new evidence not previously seen by the LPA and interested parties at the application stage. Therefore, in the interests of fairness and openness these documents will not form any part of this assessment and I have not taken them into account.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in [name] (MOL) having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies. • The effect of the proposed development on archaeology. • Whether the proposed development would achieve an acceptable standard of fire safety.

Policy G3 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) gives MOL protection equivalent to Green Belt and requires that it is protected from inappropriate development in accordance with national planning policy tests that apply to Green Belt. The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate and thus should be approved only if very special circumstances exist, unless it falls within one of the exceptions in the Framework.

Of relevance to this appeal, paragraph 154d) of the Framework provides an exception for the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces.

The appeal scheme proposes a new building which would include two ensuite bedrooms and generous living accommodation with a study, large kitchen/living/dining room and separate utility, pantry and dog wash. However, to access the annexe, occupiers would share the driveway and car parking area with Wighill and then would travel using footpaths directly past the main house and through the shared gardens. For privacy reasons, this access would be unsuitable for unconnected occupiers. The gardens would be shared and no new segregating features are proposed, although there is existing separation from the main house due to the tennis courts and dense hedging alongside the pool as well as the distance between the two buildings which the Council state would be a 114m walking route. The proposed annexe would be inhabited by the appellants, with their daughter and her family occupying Wighill. It is likely that there would be space for live-in carers in the main house. Notwithstanding, the proposals before me are for care to be provided for children in the main house and, in the future, for elderly relatives in the proposed annexe and meals would be regularly shared. Although the annexe would be large, it would nevertheless be clearly smaller than and secondary to the generous accommodation at Wighill and the properties would share utilities with no separate title formed.

I have considered the functional relationship, scale and extent of the proposal following the caselaw put to me in Eagles v Minister for the [name] and Housing, Welsh Assembly Government and Torfaen County Borough Council, (2009) EWHC 1028 and Phillip v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and South Oxfordshire District Council [2008] EWHC 3117. Also following [name] v SSE & White [1992] JPL 171, whether a separate use would be created as a matter of fact and degree. Although the facilities in the annexe would provide for independent living, together matters including the access arrangements, familial relationship, care provision and shared gardens and utilities mean that there is a clear functional and physical connection between the existing dwellinghouse and the accommodation as proposed.

Moreover, planning permission is sought on the basis that it would be part and parcel of the main house and no proposal for a separate dwelling is before me. If the structure is not built or used as proposed, or if there is a material change of use in the future to create a separate dwelling, then a separate grant of planning permission would be required, and the building would be at risk of enforcement action if such permission is not granted. Features such as a change to the access to the annexe, the formation of boundaries in the garden or a change to the ownership, familial connection or care requirements of occupants could indicate such a change. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis that it would be an annexe and part and parcel of the existing dwellinghouse use. Although the wording in the description of development is not sufficiently clear a suitably worded condition could be used to secure this use.

The buildings proposed to be demolished are a pool house and gardeners store which are incidental to the main dwelling. Therefore, both the new building and the buildings to be demolished would be part of the residential use of Wighill. As such, they are in the same use.

The pool building is a single storey flat roofed structure with three rooms and a generous eaves height. It has a volume of 378cu.m. The gardeners outbuilding is a modest single storey flat roofed outbuilding with a volume of 93cu.m. These buildings have a combined footprint of 138sq.m.

The proposed annexe would be a chalet bungalow style. It would have a hipped, pitched roof and generous gables clearly evidencing the first floor accommodation and would be taller than the existing buildings at 5.9m. However, the pitched roof would minimise the bulk at first floor. I am provided with different figures from the main parties as to its volume which would be between 471-411cu.m and they agree it would have a footprint of 144sqm, although this is disputed by interested parties. Based on the evidence before me I find that the proposed building would be similar to the volume and footprint of the buildings to be demolished.

The appeal scheme would extend development into the open part of the garden area and compared to the pool house its orientation would be wider in views from the north. However, the replacement of two separate buildings would consolidate the built form on this site. Nevertheless, the consideration of whether the replacement building would be materially larger is primarily an objective one by reference to size. Whilst the annexe would be taller, even taking all the above into account, its comparable footprint and volume lead me to conclude that overall it would not be materially larger than the ones it replaces.

A Grampian condition is proposed which would secure the demolition of these buildings, and this is suitably robust and enforceable to ensure that these works take place. As such a planning obligation would not be required. Given the importance of the demolition and size of the replacement building to the protection of MOL, it would be necessary to remove permitted development (PD) rights for outbuildings and all extensions in order to ensure that they were not replaced or the proposed annexe extended without considering the effect on MOL. This is a clear justification as to why these rights should be removed and this could be secured by condition.

The impact on openness is implicitly taken into account in the exception under paragraph 154d). Therefore, there is no requirement to assess the impact of the development on the openness of the Green Belt. Furthermore, as it is not inappropriate development under paragraph 154d) there is no need to consider any other exceptions or whether very special circumstances exist.

Therefore, the appeal scheme would not be inappropriate development in the terms of the Framework and would consequently be in accordance with Policy G3 of the LP, the aims of which are set out above.

Policy DM5 of the [name] (2012) (CS) mainly relates to sites adjacent to MOL, and open space needs. Therefore, the policy set out above is more relevant to this main issue.

The site is within an Area of [name]. Given this location specific designation, it is likely that archaeological remains could be present which have heritage significance due to their age and scarcity. A desk based assessment was not submitted with the planning application and therefore it is not possible to rule out the likelihood of archaeological remains on the appeal site.

The development would be on open garden land which is unlikely to have been disturbed in connection with the other buildings on the site and groundworks would be required for foundations for the proposed annexe. However, householder development would not generally require an assessment and the extent of the building is modest.

The appellant has suggested a condition which would secure the submission of an assessment prior to any work taking place. A condition could also ensure that a scheme of mitigation was submitted. Such works would be required to take place before the development is implemented and therefore a pre commencement condition would be necessary. This would prevent any work until a scheme which appropriately identifies, records and/or preserves and mitigates the effects has been agreed. Based on the evidence and given the scale of the development there is a prospect of these documents being agreed within the time limit. Therefore, in the circumstances of this case, a condition would be an appropriate response to ensure that the development preserves the heritage significance of archaeological remains.

Therefore, there would be an acceptable effect on archaeology. Consequently, the proposed development would be in accordance with Policy HC1 of the LP and Policy DM12 of the CS. Together these seek to preserve or enhance heritage assets and avoid or minimise harm to assets of archaeological significance.

A fire safety statement was submitted with the application, although this does not provide detail of either adequate access for fire appliances or on-site sprinkler systems. However, although the site is in MOL, there is little to suggest that appropriate access which would not be inappropriate development or harm openness could not be provided on this large site. Nor that sprinkler systems could not be provided. A condition requiring that such detail is agreed has been suggested. In these circumstances this would be an appropriate way to secure these details.

Therefore, the proposed development would achieve an acceptable standard of fire safety. Consequently, it would be in accordance with Policy D12 of the LP which requires that development achieves the highest standards of fire safety.

The Biodiversity Net Gain condition does not apply to development which is the subject of a householder application. For the reasons above the development before me is for development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. Therefore, this exemption would apply.

As set out above this appeal does not seek permission for a separate dwelling. Consequently, the increase in the number of people living at [address] and above what could currently be accommodated is minimal and I do not have detail that this limited increase would have an unacceptable effect on traffic or foul drainage. In addition, any light from the annexe would be mainly concentrated within the existing domestic garden where external lighting is not unexpected. Furthermore, I am not presented with evidence that the specific considerations in this case would be likely to arise elsewhere and therefore, that this decision would lead to a notable increase in residential annexes.

I have considered the suggested conditions against the tests in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have made amendments in order to comply with these documents and to ensure that conditions would not unnecessarily delay the delivery of development.

The standard implementation condition is attached and in the interests of certainty a condition to define the plans with which the scheme should accord. A Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment & [name] were submitted with the application. The Councils trees and landscape consultee has not required further information and I have no reason to think that these documents are inadequate, therefore a further report is not required, but a condition ensuring compliance is attached in the interests of character and appearance. Compliance with the [name] is required for biodiversity.

A condition requiring matching materials is needed in the interests of character and appearance and is proportionate in this case. A specification of tree planting is necessary for the same reason and this includes a requirement for maintenance for 5 years. However, the site is within an existing domestic garden and the evidence does not satisfy me that a full landscaping scheme is necessary.

Conditions requiring an archaeological statement and safeguarding measures, a fire statement, demolition, the use of the building as an annexe, and removal of specified PD rights are attached for the reasons set out above. However, I have not been provided with a clear justification as to why PD rights for boundary treatment, hardstanding or access ways should be removed and as such these classes are not included in the condition. Given the importance of the fire statement to this case and the site specific circumstances full details of fire safety are needed. Conditions relating to [name] and associated [name] and [name] are not required as previously set out.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: 2407-PL-110 [name], 2407-PL-111 [name], 2407 PL-100 [name], 2407 PL-250 - [name], 2407 PL-000 - Location Plan, 2407 PL-200 - Proposed Site Plan, 2407 PL-201 - Proposed Block Plan, 2407 PL-251 - Proposed Roof Plan, 2407 PL- 260 - [name], 2407 PL-261 - [name] 2, 2407 PL- 270 - [name], 2407 PL-300 - Proposed 3D Visuals, 2407-PL-100 Existing Site Plan.

No development including demolition shall take place until: i) A Desk-Based Archaeological Assessment has been carried out in accordance with a specification and timetable that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and ii) Safeguarding measures to ensure the preservation in situ of important archaeological remains and/or further archaeological investigation and recording identified in the archaeological assessment have been undertaken in accordance with a specification and timetable that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority iii) Any historic or archaeological features not previously identified which are revealed when carrying out the development hereby permitted shall be retained in-situ and reported to the local planning authority in writing within 2 working days of their being revealed. Works shall be immediately halted in the area/part of the building affected until provision has been made for the retention and/or recording in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Work shall continue in accordance with the approved details of retention and/or recording.

No development above ground level shall take place until a full specification of all proposed tree planting including replacement tree planting at a minimum ratio of 2:1 for any trees removed has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The specification shall include the quantity, size, species, and positions or density of all trees to be planted, how they will be planted and protected and the proposed time of planting. The tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved specification. If, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, the tree (or any tree planted in replacement for it) is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies or becomes seriously damaged or defective, another tree of the same size and species as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place within the first planting season following the removal, uprooting, destruction or death of the original tree.

No development above ground level (excluding demolition), shall take place until the buildings to be removed as shown on site plan drawing number 2407 PL-200 have been demolished. Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, all building waste and other materials arising from the demolition shall be removed from the site.

No development above ground level shall take place until a [name] has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Fire Safety Strategy shall demonstrate how the development will achieve the highest standards of fire safety and shall include the following details: i) suitably positioned outside space for fire appliances/ an evacuation assembly point; ii) appropriate fire alarm systems; iii) passive and active fire safety measures; iv) appropriate construction details to minimise the risk of fire spread; v) provision of suitable and convenient means of escape/ an evacuation strategy; vi) provision of suitable access and equipment for firefighting which is appropriate for the size and use of the development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved [name] prior to occupation, and thereafter retained. The required [name] shall reference the London Plan Guidance for [name] (February 2022) where applicable. A Reasonable Exception Statement shall be submitted where the Applicant considers parts of or all of Policy D12(A) of the London Plan 2021 to not be relevant.

The external materials of the outbuilding and hardstanding hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The building hereby permitted shall be used solely as an annexe which is part and parcel of the residential use of the dwelling known as Wighill and shall not be occupied, sold, leased or otherwise used as a separate or independent dwelling.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by virtue of [name], AA, B, D and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be undertaken.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Trees and Construction BS5837:2012 Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment & [name] ref 22017.25/A2_AIA, dated July 2025.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations in the [name]: ECO64 dated 25/03/2025.