Appeal 6008280

The description given on the application form includes matters that do not comprise an act of development. In the decision below I have therefore used that given on the Council’s decision notice, which more accurately reflects the proposed development.

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the conversion of an existing single storey garage/outbuilding roof from a mono pitched to a dual pitched roof with a rooflight and front window replacement with a casement window, at [site address] , Gillingham [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/26/0060 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

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: 202 rev D.

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

The main issues in this appeal are: - Whether the proposal would result in the creation of an independent dwelling. - The effect on the character and appearance of the locality. - The effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling at [address], with regard to whether the development would appear overbearing and overshadowing.

The proposal concerns an outbuilding that would be used as an annexe. The building would contain a bedroom and a shower room with a fairly modest floor area of only about 21 sq m. It would have a significantly smaller footprint and floor area than the associated house. There is no proposal to subdivide the garden so that this would clearly be shared. In these circumstances, there would be likely to be an appreciable degree of interaction between occupiers of the annexe and host dwelling, indicating a significant functional relationship.

Due to the above factors, the proposed development would not result in the creation of an independent dwelling. Moreover, it would constitute ordinary living accommodation that is normally to be expected as part and parcel of a dwelling. In any event, there is no separate dwelling before me. If the structure is not used as proposed, the plot is subdivided, or if there is a material change of use in the future to create an independent dwelling, then a separate grant of planning permission would be required. In these circumstances the building would be at risk of enforcement action if such permission is not granted.

The existing structure is sited adjacent to the footway in [address] at the end of the fairly modestly sized rear garden of the host dwelling. The height of the structure would be raised by the construction of a pitched roof with gable ends above the existing mono-pitched feature. There would also be rooflights in the development and ground levels rise towards the end of the rear garden at the appeal site.

However, despite matters such as these the ridge of the new roof to the single storey building would be at a significantly lower level than those of the two storey host dwelling and immediately adjacent property in [address]. The footprint of the outbuilding would not change and remain appreciably less than that of the host dwelling. In consequence, the bulk, mass and size would not be excessive and together with the appearance reflect its function as a domestic outbuilding. Rather than appearing overly dominant the outbuilding would be subservient to the associated dwelling. Moreover, the roof form of the altered building would better reflect the pitched roof character of nearby dwellings than the existing somewhat utilitarian appearance.

For the above reasons, it is concluded that the character and appearance of the locality would not be harmed. The proposal would comply with Medway Local Plan Policy BNE1, the aims of which include that the design of development should respect the scale and appearance of buildings and the visual amenity of the surrounding area.

During my site visit I was able to consider the effect of the proposal from the neighbouring dwelling at no [address]. The back garden of this property is of a relatively modest size and there is a two storey gable end that abuts the rear boundary. The altered outbuilding would adjoin the side boundary and rise to a total height of about 4.5m, which would be approximately 2m higher than at present.

However, despite the above considerations the roof would slope down towards the boundary with the outbuilding also being set back from the rear of the neighbouring dwelling. These matters would significantly limit the perceived bulk. Bearing in mind these factors, the size and height of the resultant structure would be insufficient to give rise to an oppressive degree of enclosure that might reasonably be considered overbearing. For similar reasons there would be no unacceptable degree of overshadowing.

For the above reasons, it is concluded that the living conditions of the adjacent occupiers would not be harmed. The proposal would comply with Medway Local Plan Policy BNE2, which seeks to prevent such adverse effects.

The National Planning Policy Framework indicates that decisions should ensure that developments satisfy a number of considerations. These include adding to the overall quality of the area, being visually attractive and creating a high standard of amenity for existing users, which would all be achieved in this case.

Because of the absence of harm and compliance with the development plan, the appeal is allowed. In the interest of certainty, a condition specifying the approved plans should be imposed. The materials used should match those of the host dwelling to protect the appearance of the locality.