Appeal 6007512

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the conversion of the garage into annex accommodation incidental to the main dwelling house, comprising of a side extension and raised roof to provide 1st floor vaulted loft accommodation at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application reference 25/01031/FUL, subject to conditions set out in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the decision of Lichfield District Council. The application is the subject of a separate decision.

There is a discrepancy in the plans submitted in respect of the presence of roof lights. Four roof lights are indicated on the proposed floor plans and proposed site plan, two in either roof slope. However, these are absent on the proposed elevations. In the interest of third parties and clarity, I have made my decision based on these roof lights not forming part of the design and the conditions address the plans accordingly.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the building and the surrounding area, including the Conservation Area; • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of nearby residents, with particular regard to privacy and daylight; and • whether the proposed development would comply with safeguarding to protected species, with particular regard to bats.

The appeal site sits within a cul-du-sac of five detached houses on the edge of the village within the Elford Conservation Area (CA). The houses all sit along one side of the road and overlook open countryside. They are arranged in a staggered formation, with the appeal site set further back from its flanking neighbours. Each house is varied in its design and orientation and has either an attached or detached garage wing. In the case of the appeal site, the house faces the road and has a detached garage sat forwards and to the side. The garage faces sideways, towards the house, with its gable to the road.

The appeal development seeks to convert the garage to an annex. In doing so it would be extended sideways (towards the road) and the ridge raised to accommodate a first floor. New fenestration would be introduced to the street facing gable, whilst the garage door would be replaced with a door and windows, along with a new central roof gable above. Considering its limited increase in size, orientation away from the road, and limited visibility along much of the approach into the cul-du-sac, the building would continue to make a modest contribution to the surrounding areas character and appearance.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires development to be of good design and respond to its context. On my site visit I saw the other outbuildings within the immediate area, and this included the neighbouring annex with its first-floor accommodation at No 6 The Osiers. This neighbouring annex however is attached to the house, of a different design and lower in its form to that of the proposed development. Nonetheless, I find that the proposal would assimilate with the varied scale, massing and orientation of built form within the street scene, and that it would not constitute overdevelopment.

In making my decision, I have had regard to the Lichfield District Design Code Supplementary Planning Document (2024) ([name]). In Village Areas, such as the appeal site, it does not support the upward extension of residential dwellings. However, as this is not a dwelling, but a small annex, this upward extension would be a modest increase in height, and the main roof would largely retain the same form and pitch of the existing garage.

The Design Code SPD also sets criteria for dormer windows. The additional first floor window on the roof slope towards the host property would sit directly on the principal wall and would read more as a gable rather than a dormer positioned within the roof. It would be set down from the ridge and be subordinate in scale to the wider roof slope it would sit within. Moreover, the gable would assimilate with the gables found in the other houses in the cul-du-sac.

The Elford Parish Neighbourhood Plan (2019) (Neighbourhood Plan) has also been brought to my attention. With regards to matters of design, the Neighbourhood Plan reflects the broad aims of the [name] and design policies of the Local Plan Strategy. I find that the proposal accords with the Neighbourhood Plan and its objectives and does not disrupt the distinctive rural character of the village.

Heritage matters do not form part of the Council’s reason for refusing the proposed development. Nonetheless, in line with section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The Elford Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (2014) notes that the CA comprises the greater part of the village of Elford, dating back to the Neolithic and Roman periods on the banks of the [name]. Despite important associations with the influential [name] during the Tudor monarchies, today the village’s significance is very much associated with the plethora of 17 th century timber framed and 18th and 19th century brick properties throughout the village core.

The appeal site is relatively prominent within the CA when viewed from the river and open countryside beyond, however there is very limited intervisibility between the appeal site and other historic buildings or areas within the CA. As the appeal site and its surrounding neighbours largely form a row of modern housing, it contributes little to the significance of the CA.

The Design Code SPD does not support roof extensions and dormer windows in the CA. Furthermore, the Elford Parish Neighbourhood Plan (2019) (Neighbourhood Plan) seeks development to conserve and enhance the CA’s setting, including the relationship between buildings, spaces, and views of heritage assets.

The proposed development will not be visible from significant areas within the CA, despite it being visible in strategic views across the river. Its modest scale would have a negligible impact on its character and appearance, little altering the areas density and general character and appearance. As such, the proposal would not harm the significance of the CA.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the building or the surrounding area, including the CA. I find no conflict with Policies CP3, CP14 or BE1 of the Lichfield District Local Plan Strategy (2015) (Local Plan Strategy). These policies, amongst other matters, require development to protect and enhance the character and distinctiveness of settlements, protect the built environment and ensure development is appropriate in terms of layout, size, scale, architectural design and public views.

The appeal site is surrounded by housing to the side and rear. Across the front of the property, adjacent houses in The Osiers face towards it over open front gardens. To the rear side, behind the existing garage, are the private rear gardens of houses on [address].

The appeal building faces sideways and towards the adjacent neighbour at No 10 The Osiers. This neighbouring house is located at the head of the cul-du-sac and therefore faces back towards the appeal building. Between them is the host properties driveway and the combined front garden spaces of both properties.

The Framework and the Council’s Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Document (2019) ([name]) together seek to preserve a high standard of amenity for existing occupiers. Among other things, the [name] sets out minimum separation distances, including 21m between two storey houses. This however generally applies when it comprises a full height first floor and with habitable room windows.

Whilst the distance between the appeal building and No 10 would be less than 21m, it would maintain an adequate separation considering the modest scale of the building and the organisation of new windows. Despite a first-floor window being proposed, this would be to a bathroom and a condition for obscure glazing would inhibit any overlooking from it. Otherwise, ground floor windows are either secondary or afford limited views towards principal habitable room windows in the front elevation of No 10 and its private garden space which is fenced and located to the rear.

To the rear of the site is a further neighbouring property known as The Bungalow which front [address] and backs onto the appeal site. This neighbouring property has ground and first floor habitable room windows facing directly towards the appeal building and is separated from it by privacy boundary fencing.

The proposed development would sit sideways towards The Bungalow, and to one side of its rear garden. As no additional windows would be introduced there would be no loss of privacy. Whilst there would be a slight increase to the roof height, its gabled form would not significantly increase the massing visible above the boundary fence and in conjunction with the separation distance would result in a limited loss of light to this neighbour’s house and garden.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of the occupants, with regard to privacy and daylight. I find no conflict with Policies CP3 or BE1 of the Local Plan Strategy. These policies, amongst other matters, require development to clearly and convincingly demonstrate a positive impact on amenity.

Bats and nesting birds are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended). It is unclear in the evidence submitted on what criteria the potential for bats has been identified. Nevertheless, the proposal is accompanied by a Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment (PBRA) which is based on a preliminary roost assessment (PRA).

The existing garage on the appeal site is of modern construction. As part of the PRA the interior and exterior of the building were surveyed and it concluded that the building has been assessed as ‘low potential’ for supporting bats.

The findings of ecology survey work cannot be absolute, and an element of ambiguity is always possible. As such, disclaimers in surveys against professional judgment are entirely reasonable. Therefore, despite the Council’s recommendation for further emergency survey work to be carried out in line with best practice guidelines, I find that the scope of survey work undertaken and the conclusions arrived at in the PRA to be reasonable and proportional. Requiring further survey work in the absence of any credible evidence that bats are present is unjustified and would place an unreasonable burden on the appellant. Nonetheless, it would be appropriate to ensure that any further survey work required prior to implementation of the proposed development would be undertaken through a condition.

In making my decision, I have had regard to the Council’s Biodiversity and Development Supplementary Planning Document (2016) (Biodiversity and Development SPD). The Biodiversity and Development SPD does not prescribe specific methodologies in bat survey work or that best practice guidelines (Collins,J.(ed) (2023) [name] for [name]: Good Practice Guidance (4th Edition) must be followed.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would satisfactorily safeguard protected species, with particular regard to bats. I find no conflict with Policies CP3, BE1 or NR3 of the Local Plan Strategy. These policies, amongst other matters, seek to enhance natural assets, have a positive impact on the natural environment and protect biodiversity.

In addition to the main issues, objections have been made with regards the independent use of the proposed development. These include concerns that the appellant has stated within the Heritage Statement that the proposal will allow flexibility for future change. As an annex, the proposed development would not be occupied as a separate self-contained dwelling, but entirely in association with the main house. There is therefore no proposal for a separate dwelling before me, and to do so, planning permission would be required.

In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the tests within the Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), and the relevant statute. I have sought the opinion of the Council and the appellant on these conditions and neither party have raised any further comments.

In addition to the standard time condition (1), I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out following the approved plans, in the interest of certainty (2). I have imposed a condition requiring the submission of materials so as to ensure the development will not harm the character and appearance of the area (3).

To ensure that the development preserves the living conditions of the occupants of nearby properties I have imposed a condition concerning the nature of future occupancy of the proposed development, limiting it to an annex use in connection with No [site address] (4). In the interest of the privacy of neighbouring properties, I have imposed conditions concerning the restriction of windows and the need for obscure glazing (5) and (6). Finally, to mitigate any likely discovery of bats in the existing building before and during building works, I have imposed a bat protection plan (7).

A condition requesting scaled sections of all new windows and doors had been requested in the conservation and design consultation comments in the event that the application was approved. Considering the level of detail already provided in the submitted plans and the existing mix of windows in the surrounding modern houses, I do not consider a condition for these details necessary in order to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area or the CA.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that 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 01-00 Rev PL2 (Location and [name]), 08-00 Rev PL2 (Proposed Site Plan), 11-00 Rev PL3 ([name]), and 21-00 Rev PL1 ([name]). The roof lights indicated on drawing Nos 08- 00 Rev PL2 and 11-00 Rev PL3 shall not be implemented.

No development above ground level shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved samples.

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

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 windows or dormer windows shall be constructed on [name] or D as annotated on drawing No 21-00 Rev PL1 ([name]).

The annex hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the first floor window in [name] on drawing No 21-00 Rev PL1 ([name]) has been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the window is installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

No development shall take place until a bat protection plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include: a) The scope, methodology and timing of an emergency bat survey to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. b) The findings and recommendations of the emergency bat survey shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and will form the evidence base of the bat protection plan. c) The scope and methodology of a bat protection plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The bat protection plan shall include: • All recommendations and findings of the emergency bat survey; • A methodology for the time of year the works will be undertaken; • Details of how the roof of the existing garage will be dismantled; • Measures for rehoming any bats/roosts found; and • Any mitigation measures in the new building fabric and design. The bat protection plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plans and maintained as such thereafter.