Appeal 6008300

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the demolition of existing garages and works to the existing annexe including erection of a single storey extension, raising of the ridge roof height and construction of an access ramp at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/02761, 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 not be carried out other than in complete accordance with the approved plans: Location Plan, Block Plan 2509 05B, [name] and Elevations 2509 03A and Proposed Plan and Elevations 2509 04G.

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

The development 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] .

The main issues are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area, and whether the proposed development would amount to a separate, self-contained dwelling.

No.57 is a detached property set in a backland position accessed via a single-width driveway between Nos.55 and [address]. Although the appeal site sits behind the frontage development, it forms part of a group of three houses, with the neighbouring properties accessed from [address]. The plot is well screened by planting, and both neighbours present two-storey, flank elevations towards the appeal site.

Alongside the two-storey house is a flat-roofed double garage with an annexe to the rear. The proposal would replace the existing garage, extend the rear element and create a higher roof form over the whole structure. The resultant building would entirely become a 2 bedroom annexe. The entrance, served by a wheelchair-accessible ramp, would be on the north-west elevation, on the side away from the house, where the level change is less pronounced. The footprint of the annexe would not be dissimilar to the main house, although the increase as a result of this development would be limited. The building would remain single-storey and would be visually subservient to the scale and form of the main house.

Whilst the existing flat-roofed garage is low in profile, it makes little positive contribution to the property’s appearance. Replacing it with a pitched roof structure would improve its visual quality and reflect the design and materials of the main house. The ridgeline would rise by about 1m, but the use of hips and half-hips would limit the additional bulk of the roofscape.

The proximity of the annexe and the host dwelling would remain unchanged, whilst the separation to the north-west boundary would be slightly reduced, sufficient offset would remain. Overall, the increase in plot coverage would be minimal, and the additional massing would be limited. The loss of the garage and the introduction of windows to the front elevation and a separate side entrance would alter the building’s appearance. It would, nonetheless, remain clearly associated with the host property and would not appear unduly prominent or imposing.

I therefore do not find that the proposal would result in a cramped form of development, nor would it be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or its surroundings. Thus, the proposed development would accord with policy EN4 of the Mole Valley Local Plan (2020-2039) (LP) and policies AS-H5 and AS-EN3 of the Ashtead Neighbourhood Development Plan (ANP), which together and amongst other things promote high-quality design that makes a positive contribution to its local character and visual integration with the surroundings.

There would also be compliance with the general design objectives of the Design Guidance for [name] and Outbuildings -Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2025), and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The proposed annexe building would incorporate all facilities (kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms, etc) to allow an occupier to live independently. This is contrary to the Council’s SPD, which advises that an annexe should be attached to the main house, be connected internally, share at least one main facility, and also resists the inclusion of a second door or staircase. The SPD is, however, guidance, and while it indicates that detached buildings will not normally be permitted, it also advises that proposals will be assessed on their individual merit.

Whilst detached, the gap between the main house and the annexe building is limited, and this proposal is primarily altering and reconfiguring an existing structure which already provides annexe facilities. The appellant explains that the annexe is to accommodate the occupants' elderly parents and there would be no change to the ownership or subdivision of the plot. They would also share the garden space, and the kitchen window to the annexe would have an outlook, in very close proximity, over the area immediately to the rear of the main house.

As a result of the proposal, the current arrangement of entrance doors on the facing façades, and a small linking canopy, would be removed. Positioned on the other side, the proposed entrance would facilitate wheelchair access, which would be difficult to achieve with the current arrangement given the restricted space.

The plot is self-contained and due to the property’s position and the access arrangements, parking and turning would be shared and located immediately in front of the annexe. Additionally, the proposal was submitted as part of a householder scheme. The creation of a separate dwelling would constitute a material change of use, requiring a separate grant of planning permission, and the appellant indicates agreement to a condition restricting the use.

Therefore, whilst there is no direct physical connection, drawing all these matters together I find that there is a visual and functional relationship between the two buildings. I am also mindful of established caselaw that even if the accommodation has facilities for independent day-to-day living, it will not necessarily become a separate planning unit – rather this is a matter of fact and degree.

I thereby conclude that the proposal does not form a separate independent dwelling. As an ancillary facility, I do not find conflict with LP policy EN4 and ANP policies AS-H5 and AS-EN3, as the development relates to the main house and the character of the site would be maintained.

There would be conflict with some of the guidance in the SPD in relation to the design of annexes. There are, however, other considerations in this case which weigh in favour of development and no direct harm is identified from the proposed development as ancillary accommodation.

The Council found that the proposed development would have no adverse impact on the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers and that appropriate provision would be made for access and parking. Based on the information before me and my on-site observations, I have no reason to disagree. As an annexe and part of a single planning unit, there would be no change to the density of development or any requirements related to the provision of a new dwelling.

Conditions are necessary in line with statutory requirements and for clarity in relation to the timescale for development and the approved plans. In the interest of the appearance of the building, a condition is to secure matching materials and, as set out above, the use as part of the main property.

The proposal would provide annexe facilities and would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and I have not found conflict with the development plan. As such and for the reasons set out, the appeal is allowed.