Appeal 6009364

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing garage outbuilding and replacement with single-storey ground-floor outbuilding for use as a granny annex at [site address] , Hackney, London, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/2671, and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development shall be carried out only in accordance with following approved drawings and any subsequently approved details: EX-L001 A, EX-P001 A, P002A, P003A, P004A, EX-001 A, EX-002A, EX-003A, S001 A, PR-L001A, PR-P001 A, P002 A, P003A, P004A, PR-E001A, PR-E002A, PR-E003A, S001A, PR001A.

Full details of the materials to be used on the external surfaces of the building, including glazing, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before the relevant work commences. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the details approved.

Full details of the sustainable drainage of the proposed building shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before the relevant work commences. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the details approved.

The annex 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] , Hackney [postcode] .

An application for costs was made by [name] against Hackney Council, and this is the subject of a separate Decision.

The application describes the proposed built development as a ‘replacement single-storey outbuilding for use as a granny annexe’. However, the Council simply describe it as a ‘replacement single-storey outbuilding to end of garden’ and regard it as amounting to a separate dwelling. However, the proposal is clearly for ancillary residential accommodation, and I consider it as such.

I consider the main issues to be: i. the effects the proposed replacement outbuilding would have on the character and appearance of the appeal property at No [site address] and the wider surrounding area; ii. the quality of the living accommodation that would be provided and the residential amenity of occupiers and neighbours; and iii. whether the proposed annexe would have a truly ancillary relationship to the main dwelling.

It is also necessary to consider the need for a legal agreement regarding car parking.

The proposed annex would enlarge the group of outbuildings at the rear of [address] by some 48sqm and commensurately reduce the area of private garden at the appeal property. However, the single-storey building would be recessive in appearance due to its simple lines and flat roof, whilst the remaining private garden would continue to provide a significant degree of openness.

Notably, there is an existing dwelling set back across the shared rear access track. In context, I do not consider that the proposed built development would alter the overall character or appearance of the immediate locality in any harmful way.

I consider that the proposed building would provide an amount and quality of modest accommodation suitable to a granny annex.

There is no evidence that, when occupied ancillary to the main dwelling within a single household, as proposed, that the annex would give rise to, or suffer from, any harm to residential amenity affecting occupiers either of the granny annex itself or of the closely neighbouring gardens and dwellings.

Being of single-storey construction and extending to no more than 59sqm in area, the annex would appear modest in itself and subordinate to the main two-storey host dwelling, to which it would enjoy a visually close spatial relationship across a shared private garden.

The annex would have no separate entrance whilst access to the proposed accommodation would be shared with the existing house, which occupies the full width of the street frontage.

As found above, the type and amount of accommodation proposed appears consistent with the degree of independent living to be expected in a granny annex.

A suggestion by the Council that the annex in this case could be let as a separate dwelling, such as via Airbnb, appears speculative and I give it little planning weight.

I consider that, properly judged on the circumstances of the case in terms of fact and degree, as required in law, the proposed granny annex would have a truly ancillary relationship to the main dwelling within a single planning unit.

The third reason for refusal alleges that the proposed development would be likely to exacerbate existing parking stress and congestion in the absence of a legal agreement restricting occupiers from obtaining parking permits within the local [name].

I do not consider that, as merely small-scale ancillary accommodation within the existing residential planning unit, the proposed development would be likely to generate significant additional on-street parking demand. I therefore find that a legal agreement in this connection is not necessary.

As well as standard conditions regarding time for commencement, compliance with approved drawings and approval of finishing materials, a further requirement is appropriate for advance approval of details to ensure the sustainable drainage of the annex and in support of biodiversity, based on that suggested without prejudice by the Council.

I also consider it appropriate expressly to limit the annex to use only in conjunction with the occupation of the main dwelling. Although neither party specifically suggests such a condition, its imposition flows naturally from the description of the development and the written representations to the appeal.

However, I do not consider further suggested conditions on energy consumption, cycle parking or waste management to be necessary for an ancillary annex within the same planning unit as the existing dwelling.

For the foregoing reasons, I find that the proposed granny annex would comply with the relevant development plan policies, specifically LP1, LP2 and LP17 of the Hackney Borough Local Plan and D3, D4 and D6 of the London Plan, regarding design and amenity. Similarly, it would not harm the aims of LP43 and LP45 of the HBLP or T4 and T6 of the London Plan, with respect to transport and car parking.

On consideration of every matter raised in the written representations for or against the proposed development, I reach the overall conclusion that this appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions set out above.