Appeal 6006787

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this case are: i) the effect of the proposed building on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area; ii), as a building capable of being an independent, self-contained residential unit, the effect it would have on the character and appearance of the area, and the amenity of neighbouring occupants/residents; and iii) whether it would provide acceptable living conditions for occupants.

The appeal site is a two-story semi-detached house, which has had a loft conversion with a rear dormer. The proposed annexe would be sited on the rear boundary of the garden. There is a three-story block of flats to the rear and a number of trees along the boundary of No.6 [name]. The surrounding area is predominantly residential. The location plan for the site shows a rear access running from [address] next to No.2, and along the back of the residential gardens ending at the rear of the appeal site. However, at my site visit I saw that this was gated and locked, and there was no means of access from the appeal site to this track.

There are a number of single-storey outbuildings in the rear gardens of houses in the vicinity, but nothing that represents a development on the scale as proposed in this appeal. In this situation, the proposed two-story building would have a substantial presence in the locality, with a large footprint. It would appear incongruous in the surroundings. The accommodation in the building would consist of a garden room and study on the ground floor with WC accommodation. On the first floor there would be a bedroom and bathroom/utility room. Whilst there is no kitchen facility shown on the drawing, it would be capable of providing such provision in the floor area that would be provided. It would be capable of independent occupation.

There would be a separation distance of some 17m with the host dwelling and a similar distance from Nos. 6 and 10. The use of the proposed building as an independent dwelling, having no separate private space, would be likely to lead to noise and general disturbance and a loss of privacy. The proposal would therefore have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the garden side of the adjacent dwellings, and the living conditions of the occupants. The appellant’s appeal statement describes the proposal as a novel singular visual and physical presence. That would be true, and reinforces my conclusion on the effects of the proposal. There is no explanation of a private need for the annexe which could be considered against the public harm that would result from the proposed development.

For these reasons the proposed building would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area, and the living conditions of neighbouring residents. It would also fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers due to lack of privacy and lack of private outdoor space.

It is necessary to consider whether a satisfactory permission could be given with the use of a planning condition, such as one requiring that the building only be occupied as ancillary accommodation to the host dwelling. However, this would be difficult to monitor and for that reason would not be a reasonable, and unlikely to avoid public harm.

For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed.