Appeal 6008809

The appeal is dismissed.

In some respects, the Council has treated the proposed development as a separate dwelling. However, the application and appeal are clearly for a granny annex ancillary to the main house, and I deal with it as such.

I consider that the main issues in this case relate to: i. the effect that the scale and location of the granny annexe would have on the character and appearance of the appeal property, within the setting of the adjacent Lordship Park Conservation Area (CA); ii. the effects of the development with regard to access, outlook and neighbouring amenity; and iii. whether the annexe would have a truly ancillary relationship to the main dwelling;

It is also appropriate to consider whether it would be necessary for the development to provide legal agreements with respect to car-free occupation, carbon offset, biodiversity net gain (BNG), and affordable housing.

Although comprising only a single storey of living accommodation above ground, the proposed annex would include a substantial basement office, studio, WC and courtyard. The ground floor living accommodation would include every facility and sufficient space for independent living.

Although visibly modest and subordinate to the main dwelling, the building would intensify the amount of outbuilding and domestic activity within the extensive and relatively peaceful, open rear garden area between [address] and Lordship Park to the south. In some measure, this would be detrimental to the setting of the Lordship Park CA, which the appeal site bounds.

Even occupied as part of the same household as the host property, in its scale and location the proposed built development would depart significantly from the local development pattern and appear as a separate backland dwelling. I consider that this would lead to appreciable detriment to the character and appearance of the site and the wider area.

There were similar findings in the dismissal of a previous appeal on the same site in 2023 but that was for a separate two-storey dwellinghouse and so is not directly comparable with the proposed granny annex, which I judge on individual merit.

In respect of the issue of character and appearance, I find that the proposed development would run counter to Policies LP1 (i and ii) and LP3 of the Hackney Local Plan (HLP) and D4 and D6 of the London Plan, which together, consistent with national planning policy, seek high-quality housing design responding to local character, townscape and urban grain, as well as safeguarding the significance of designated heritage assets, such as the Lordship Park CA.

In terms of access and outlook, the proposed annex would seem to be very far removed from the main house to serve as ancillary accommodation, with limited outlook, especially from its basement level. Moreover, the existing side entrance from [address] and the width of the garden lend themselves to the provision of a separate pedestrian access, supporting occupation as an independent dwelling.

I accept that there would be no unduly adverse impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring homes, given the extent of their long back gardens.

However, with regard to access and outlook, the development would be in some conflict with HLP Policy LP1(xiv) regarding inclusivity and access.

Whilst the use of the annex could be limited by planning condition to ancillary occupation, the accommodation would still be remote and largely out of sight from the main dwelling, at the far end of the long garden, mainly isolated behind the rear boundaries of Nos 2 and [address].

It is established law that whether built accommodation is ancillary to its host dwelling is a matter of judgement of fact and degree in individual circumstances.

In this case, it is clear to me that the proposed building would be tantamount to a new substantial dwelling, in a backland location, with potential for separate access where, moreover, any occupation condition would be difficult to enforce.

For these reasons, I find that the proposed built development is not to be regarded as an annex truly ancillary to No [site address] , as described in the original application.

This finding emphasises the degree of conflict between the appeal proposal and Policies LP1 of the HLP, as well as D3, D4 and D6 of the London Plan, seeking development appropriate to its context in layout, scale, orientation and outlook.

The Council refused the application in part on a lack of legal agreements concerning car-free occupation, carbon offset, BNG and affordable housing.

These planning obligations would relate to a separate new dwelling, whereas the appeal is concerned with proposed ancillary accommodation within the existing planning unit, raising the question of whether such agreements can properly be required.

However, my findings above in relation to the main issues are decisive, in the absence of any evident countervailing material considerations. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to make further reference to the matters of legal agreements.

For the overriding reasons of conflict with development plan policies, as explained above, I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.