Appeal 6006403

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • Whether the proposal would constitute an independent residential annex.

During the planning application process the Council received a set of amended plans which reduced the size of the annex. This appeal decision is based on the set of amended plans.

The appeal site is located in open countryside outside of any defined settlement, although the village of Flecknoe is located to the west of the site. [site address] is located to the south of agricultural buildings, one of which is positioned close to [site address] . Agricultural land is located to the east, west and south of the appeal site.

[site address] is a two-storey detached property with an attached double garage. The property is set back from the road behind a low-level hedgerow and a small number of trees. The frontage consists of a mix of hardstanding and grassed areas. The proposed annex would be constructed on a grassed area in front of the existing dwelling in the north-west corner of the site.

The proposed annex would provide 2 storeys of accommodation, although the second storey would be within the loft space. Notwithstanding this, the L-shaped annex would have a notable scale and massing covering a significant area in the front garden of the existing property. By virtue of its size and positioning in front of the existing dwelling it would compete with the host property and would be viewed as a new dwelling in the front garden, thereby appearing incongruous. It is accepted that there are large agricultural buildings to the north of the appeal site but given that they are used for a wholly different purpose they are not comparable to a residential annex.

The proposed annex would be constructed in red brick with a pitched tiled roof in a design that is reflective of the appearance of the host dwelling. However, by virtue of its siting adjacent to the road the annex would appear unduly prominent within the streetscene. This conflicts with the [name] & [name] and [name] (February 2023) which indicates that outbuildings may not be acceptable in prominent locations such as corner properties or in front of the building line. Whilst there are some trees along the site frontage, the dwelling would still be highly visible to road users heading north along [site address] . Furthermore, given the deciduous nature of the trees any screening provided would be minimal in the winter months. Whilst one of the adjacent agricultural buildings is positioned close to the road, this is not comparable given that it is typical rural building that is characteristic of the area unlike the proposed annex.

It has been suggested that because [site address] does not form part of a consistent street scene of similar dwellings an annex positioned to the front of the site cannot be considered harmful. Whilst it is accepted that there is not a consistent rhythm of development along [site address] , the harm to the character and appearance of the area in this case arises from the scale and siting of the annex rather than its relationship with any surrounding buildings outside of the appeal site.

I conclude that the proposal materially harms the character and appearance of the area. The development is contrary to Policy SDC1 of the Rugby Borough Council Local Plan 2011-2031 (RBCLP). Amongst other matters, this policy sets out that all development will demonstrate high quality, inclusive and sustainable design and new development will only be supported where the proposals are of a scale, density and design that responds to the character of the area.

The appeal site is located outside of any defined settlement within open countryside. Concerns have been raised that the proposal amounts to a new dwelling in the countryside which would need to be assessed against Policy GP2 of the RBCLP which generally resists development for new dwellings in such locations. The Council concluded that the proposal would not constitute an annex but they did not refer to Policy GP2 within their decision notice.

Whilst the annex is a detached building and incorporates all the features required for independent living, it is in very close proximity to the host dwelling. Furthermore, it shares both the vehicular access and amenity space with the host dwelling. There is also no proposal to erect boundary treatments to separate the annex from the dwelling. It has also been explained that the dwelling would be occupied by the appellants son.

In accordance with paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) the use of conditions is recommended where otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable. In this case a condition could be used to ensure that the annex remains ancillary to the main dwelling house in perpetuity and therefore prevent it becoming a separate dwelling.

I conclude that the proposal would constitute a residential annex and would not represent an isolated new home in the countryside and therefore the proposal accords with paragraph 84 of the Framework.

Reference has been made to four planning application decisions made by Rugby Borough Council in relation to residential annexes. These decisions indicate that the Council has previously accepted the use of a condition to control the use, which is the approach that would have been utilised on this appeal, if the development had been found to be acceptable in all other regards. However, none of these referenced decisions are directly comparable to the character and appearance issues raised on this appeal scheme. The four examples provided were all extensions to existing dwellings. This is not comparable to the appeal scheme which relates to a proposed new building sited in front of an existing dwelling which I have found to be harmful in this case.

The development would provide economic benefits during both the construction phase and in future occupation. However, given the proposal is for a single residential annex, the benefits would be modest in extent.

The appellant states that if allowed the annex would enable the son of the appellant to live in close proximity. However, I have not been provided with evidence, financial or otherwise, as to why the son needs to live locally. I therefore attach limited weight to this benefit.

The appeal scheme would deliver a biodiversity net gain of at least 10%. However, given that this is a statutory duty this is a neutral factor in the planning balance.

It is accepted that the proposal would have no impact on protected species, there would be no adverse impact on highway safety and no increased risk of surface water flooding. However, the absence of harm in these areas is a neutral factor in

I have found the proposal would materially harm the character and appearance of the area. This is a major shortcoming of the appeal scheme, and I attach significant weight to this harm.

Taking all matters into account, the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly outweigh the benefits.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.