Appeal 6009218

The appeal is dismissed.

The annexe has already been erected on site although the internal layout and exterior cladding have not yet been completed. The siting of the annexe and design appeared broadly consistent with the submitted plans. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans,

The Council raises no concerns over the potential for the annexe to be used as an independent dwelling and I note that both parties have indicated that the use of the building as an ancillary use to the main dwelling can be secured by condition.

The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the proposal on (i) the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area and (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings, Nos 20 and [address].

The annexe, the subject of the appeal, is sited within the rear/side garden of No [site address] (No 26), a semi-detached dwelling located within a residential estate of dwellings of a similar scale and design. Due to its location at the corner of [address], the appeal site has a larger than average garden with variable site levels. There is a drop in ground levels from the driveway into the garden area and a further level change rising from south to north within the rear/side garden area on which the annexe is located.

The annexe, sited above ground level at its southern end, is a substantial building comprising a shower room, bedroom and lounge/dining area. As indicated on the plans, it has been installed on the higher part of the garden where the site slopes upwards and erected on ground screws to accommodate the change of levels. The combination of the ground levels and installation of ground screws means that the height and mass of the building create an elevated large and bulky built form in this domestic setting. Nonetheless, due to screening offered by existing buildings and garages on [address], the annexe would not be easily visible from the public domain either from [address] or the adjoining street, [address].

However, despite the existence of mature vegetation within the appeal site and the gardens of neighbouring properties, the annexe would be visible in private views obtained from Nos 20 and [address]. In such views, and notwithstanding that it would be single storey and flat roofed, it would be a discordant and overbearing feature from these properties where it would be viewed as a large boxlike structure. That these are not public views does not lessen the requirement for good design or justify a development which would otherwise be unacceptable. As such, and despite being sited within a large garden plot it would fail to be subservient to the host dwelling contrary to guidance contained within the [name] (adopted August 2023) (CBDG) which requires annexes to be proportionate and play a subservient role.

Therefore the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area and as such would be in conflict with Policy HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2015-2035 (adopted 2021) (LP) which requires development proposals to relate well to the existing local surroundings in terms of size, scale and massing amongst other matters. It would also conflict with the CBDG, details of which I have already given.

Nos 20 and [address] lie to the south west of the appeal property separated by a close boarded fence and mature vegetation and with modest rear gardens. The annexe would have windows and doors serving habitable rooms facing towards the shared boundary. As such and due to its height and elevated position, the annexe would afford its users a more open and elevated view over the neighbouring gardens and rear habitable rooms of these properties, particularly over that of No 20. Whilst one window would serve a bedroom which in itself might limit the frequency of the use, the lounge area with floor to ceiling windows would provide an opportunity for overlooking for more sustained periods. Notwithstanding the separation distances between the annexe and the neighbouring properties, the elevated siting of the annexe and significant differences in land levels would mean that an acceptable level of privacy would be compromised due to the views obtainable.

Accordingly, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 20 and [address] and as such would be contrary to Policy HQ1 of the LP which requires development not to have an unacceptable adverse impact upon nearby existing uses. It would also be in conflict with the CBDG which provides that overlooking should be avoided as neighbours have a right to privacy.

I have considered the suggestion of the appellant that a landscaping scheme would overcome the harm to the neighbours. However, particularly during the winter months, the annexe would appear prominently from neighbouring properties, and I do not consider that additional planting, even when fully grown, would be likely to mitigate this harm. As such I am not convinced that privacy screening is a matter which can be addressed by the imposition of planning conditions.

The appellant suggests that the height of the structure would be some 0.4 metres higher than that allowable under permitted development rights for an outbuilding within a residential garden. However, any such outbuilding would not be as substantial nor as prominent as the scheme before me. The appellant also refers to the need for additional development on the site to accommodate additional occupants but there are limited details before me as to the extent of these needs and why they cannot be met by an alternative less harmful scheme. Accordingly, I give these matters limited weight.

For the reasons given above I accordingly dismiss the appeal.