Appeal 6008311

The description used by the Council in the decision notice more accurately reflects the proposed development than that given on the application form. I have therefore used this in the decision below.

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of a garage to be replaced with a self-contained annex and the provision of one additional off-street parking space, at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01495/HOU 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: P0, P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8 and P9.

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 noise and disturbance and whether the development would appear overbearing.

The proposal concerns a detached dwelling where a separate building would be constructed in the rear garden for use as an annex. The Council is concerned that it would include facilities such as a bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and lounge area so that it could be used as an independent dwelling. However, these are the type of facilities that would tend to be found in an annex and are not necessarily indicative of a separate dwelling. It is necessary to consider how the annex would function.

The building would be occupied by a relative of the Appellant. The Council points out that the annex would have an internal floor area only a couple of metres short of the Government’s standard for a one person dwelling. Nevertheless, the existing house is a fairly large four bedroom property set over two floors. The new building would have only a ground floor and one bedroom, therefore being significantly more modest in size.

The buildings would be in fairly close proximity with about 10m between them. There are gates onto [address] that would enable the annex to be accessed separately from the frontage dwelling. However, the rear garden between the annex and associated house would clearly be shared as there is no proposal to subdivide it and occupiers of the house could also use this entrance. The above factors would be likely to result in an appreciable degree of interaction, giving rise to a significant functional relationship between the annex and host dwelling.

In these circumstances 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 built or 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. Concerns that the development would result in a separate dwelling with an uncharacteristic backland position and absence of a street frontage are not therefore justified.

Although there would be no harm from a new dwelling as none would be created, it is necessary to consider the effect of the annex. The new single storey building would have a noticeably lesser footprint than the associated house, while also being appreciably lower with a mainly flat roof. In consequence, it would be subordinate to the host property. It would only project fairly modestly above the boundary treatments. The annex would have the appearance of a domestic outbuilding of an appropriate design and scale that might reasonably be expected in a rear garden. For these reasons there would be no harm to the character and appearance of the locality.

Movements to and from the annex would tend to be intermittent in nature, including in relation to vehicles using the parking space next to it reached off [address]. Entering and leaving the new building is unlikely to be a particularly noisy activity and there is no evidence to show otherwise. The annex would be located broadly between the house at no 4 and the new parking space. It would also be at some distance from the neighbouring property.

The Council expresses concern over matters such as the use of televisions, radios and domestic lighting given the kitchen window in the annex being located towards the side boundary and facing towards the rear of the frontage dwellings. However, given reasonable domestic use and matters such as the intervening boundary fence, fairly modest size of the window and distance from the adjacent dwelling, I am not persuaded that there would be any significant impact. As a result of these factors, there would be no undue noise and disturbance from use of the annex and I note that the Environmental Health Officer has raised no objections.

The new building would abut the side boundary to the rear garden of the neighbouring dwelling at no 4 and have a depth of about 8.7m. However, it would, on the whole, only be about 2.7m in height apart from a relatively small lantern feature which would be just over 3.1m high. In consequence, the new building would only project fairly modestly above the top of the boundary fence and wall. It would also be about 10m from the rear of the adjacent dwelling. In these circumstances there would be no unduly oppressive sense of enclosure and the development would not appear overbearing.

For these reasons, it is concluded that the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling would not be harmed.

In the above circumstances there would be compliance with Spelthorne Local Plan 2024-2039/40 Policies PS2 and E4. Taken together and among other things, these seek a high standard of design with due regard to the scale and height of adjoining buildings. An unneighbourly impact due to an overbearing effect should be avoided and planning permission will be refused where the impact of noise cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level.

Because of the absence of harm and compliance with the development plan, the appeal is allowed. A separate dwelling is not being proposed and there is no need for a condition requiring the use of the annex to be ancillary. In the interest of certainty, a condition specifying the approved plans should be imposed. The facing materials should match those of the host dwelling to protect the appearance of the locality.