Appeal 6006323

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the erection of an annexe to form living accommodation at [site address] , [name], [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref P25/02471/HH, subject to the conditions set out in the accompanying Schedule.

The description of the proposed development was changed by agreement between the parties from that used in the planning application form, and I have used the agreed description. However, a small, ground floor extension is also proposed to the rear of the dwelling, being separate to the proposed annexe. The officer report clarifies that the Council has no objection to this aspect of the development, and I have no reason to disagree.

The annexe takes the form of a side/rear ground floor extension to the dwelling. I note the appellant’s comments relating to the Council’s reliance on two Supplementary Planning Documents – those in respect of Annexes and [name] and [name]. However, having regard to the nature and form of the proposal I consider both to be relevant and have been taken into account as material considerations.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: (a) the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings, and (b) the living conditions of the residents of [address] with particular reference to visual impact.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling contained within a quiet and predominantly residential cul-de-sac. The dwelling is sited near the end of the cul-de-sac adjacent to the highway turning circle. As a consequence, all the plots at the end of the cul-de-sacs have irregular shapes, and the appeal property is no exception. The plot on which the house stands is relatively narrow at the front, gradually widening towards the rear.

The annexe has an unusual form in terms of its angular relationship to the main dwelling, so much so that the Council regard the design as objectionable for several reasons. It is referred to as disproportionate in scale to the host property, having an irregular footprint, angled siting alleged to compete with rather than supporting the hierarchy of the host property. It is also referred to as an overdevelopment of the site, proving visually dominant and resulting in a loss of external amenity area below the Council’s normally applied standards.

The space provided is meant for the appellant’s mother and includes a bedroom, living room and bathroom, the type of accommodation commonly found in annexes. That which the Council describe as the front door of the annexe also acts as the rear door to the main dwelling via a lobby serving both. The annexe and dwelling are clearly linked and designed so that the annexe is perceived as ancillary accommodation. The extent and size of the spaces created is not in my view excessive and the development is proportionate in scale to the host property.

The Council’s objection on loss of amenity space and greenery appears to me to be based either on a misunderstanding of the drawings or a miscalculation. The annexe is designed with a patio area to the side to be shared with the occupants of the main dwelling. A substantial amount of greenery and garden would remain to the rear, exceeding by far the 60m2 calculated by the Council. This miscalculation has possibly clouded the Council’s judgment on its allegation of an overdevelopment. To my mind, that proposed, having regard to the plot’s resultant undeveloped area, could not reasonably qualify as overdevelopment in the normally accepted sense of the term.

Taking account of the plot’s irregular shape; the existing dwelling’s ground floor layout; the lengthy extension to No 3 next door, and the need to marry the proposed annexe to the dwelling in terms of a convenient linkage and circulation, it is understandable to me that the architect adopted the form and position for the annexe shown on the plans. That the form of the development may be unusual should not in itself rank it as objectionable.

While the extension would be seen from outside the site as suggested by the Council, because of its set-back position in relation to the dwelling’s front elevation its impact on the street scene would be minimal and acceptable. In this respect most of the properties in the cul-de-sac display single storey structures or extensions in the gaps between dwellings, so the annexe would not prove unusual.

I conclude that the proposed annexe would fit acceptably and unobtrusively within its visual context, without materially affecting the character and appearance of the host property or its surroundings. Accordingly, no conflict arises with those provisions of policies CS1 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: [name] (December 2013) and PSP1 & PSP38 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (November 2017) directed to promote and encourage high quality design generally, and specifically in residential extensions.

The Council’s concerns centre on the impacts arising from the siting of the proposal running parallel to and close to the common boundary shared by the appeal property and [address]. The boundary is currently hedged and this would effectively screen much of the development. The roof and upper part of the annexe could be seen from No 5’s rear garden. However, the garden is relatively large and the annexe, given the presence of the hedge would not to my mind give rise to the impacts feared by the Council, it certainly would not dominate or give rise to an unacceptable sense of enclosure. Although not decisive in my considerations I note that the owners or occupants of No 5 did not object on being consulted on the application and nor did any other local resident.

I conclude that the annexe would not harm the residents of [address] by reason of adverse visual impact. Accordingly, no conflict arises with those provisions of PSP38 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (November 2017) directed to safeguard neighbouring residential amenities.

In the interests of certainty, it is important that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, and a condition to this effect is imposed. A condition on materials is imposed in the interests of certainty and visual amenity.

The Council has not suggested the imposition of any further conditions. I consider that a condition relating to the occupancy of the annexe is necessary in the interests of clarity and certainty.

As noted previously the boundary between Nos 4 & 5 is demarcated by a hedge. However, it is by no means certain that all of it would survive the construction of the annexe, and it is possible that part of the boundary may need to be fenced and/or replanted to safeguard mutual privacy interests, especially having regard to the position of the proposed annexe bedroom window. A condition addressing this issue is imposed in the interest of amenity.

All other matters raised in the representations have been considered, including the views expressed by the Yate Town Council, but none is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations leading to my conclusions.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: location plan and [name] PL01; PL02; PL03; PL04; PL05; PL06; PL07; PL08 & PL09.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building.

The annexe hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as [site address] .

Prior to the occupation of the annexe hereby permitted the treatment of the boundary between 4 & [address] shall be completed in accordance with a scheme previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.