Erection of self-contained single storey annexe

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 December 2016 by S J Lee BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 5TH January 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/R2520/W/16/3158688 14 Barleyfield Close, Heighington, Lincoln LN4 1TX  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mrs Julie Emmott against the decision of North Kesteven District Council.  The application Ref 16/0581/HOUS, dated 6 May 2016, was refused by notice dated 28 July 2016.  The development proposed is the erection of self-contained single storey annexe. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the development on: (a) the character and appearance of the surrounding area; (b) the living conditions of future occupants, with particular regard to amenity space; and (c) highway and pedestrian safety, with particular regard to parking provision. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The new building would sit in the gap between 12 and 14 Barleyfield Close. No 14 is a large bungalow which differs in scale and design from the majority of those on the close, which are more uniform in character, layout and urban grain. The host dwelling has a detached double garage and a relatively large side and rear garden that is predominantly laid out as lawn. The site is accessed from a drive off Barleyfield Close, which the appellant shares with No 16. An area of open space has been created in the gap between the driveway and the front and side amenity space of No 14. 4. The Council have questioned whether the development would function as a residential annexe. However, they accept that even if it were a separate dwelling, such development would be acceptable in principle in this village location. Nevertheless, there is concern that the new building would appear unduly cramped to the detriment of the character of the wider area and that this would be contrary to the Development Plan irrespective of the function of the building. Appeal Decision APP/R2520/W/16/3158688 2 5. The distance between the side of the development and the side of No 12 is similar to that between No 12 and No 10. The development would also be roughly the same layout as other dwellings along this side of the road, where each bungalow is setback from their neighbour. In this respect, the development would maintain some aspects of local character. However, the gap between the development and No 14 itself is somewhat narrower. The appellant has suggested that this is to be expected owing to the use of the building as an annexe. While I recognise that an annexe would be closely related to the host dwelling, this does not mean that it should be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area. 6. The space between the common boundary of No 14 and No 16 is already quite narrow. The space to the other side of No 14 is important, therefore, in ensuring the host building does not appear cramped in its own right. The truncating of the gap between No 14 and No 12 would result in both the host dwelling and the development appearing uncomfortably squeezed into the overall plot. The fact that No 14 and No 16 are larger dwellings than the majority in the area would serve to emphasise and exacerbate the negative impact of significantly reducing the space to the side of the building and the narrowing of the gap between No 14 and No 12. 7. The development would not be particularly prominent in a wider context, but the top of the building and roofline would be visible above the fencing from some locations on the Close. As a result, the narrowness of the gap between the host dwelling and development, and the intensification of the built form in the street scene, would be apparent. The scale and nature of the development is similar to other bungalows in the Close. As such, it would not appear ancillary or complementary to the host dwelling. In this context, the scale of the building combined with the narrow gap and tight relationship between the development and host would appear incongruous and an over intensive use of the space. 8. The proposal would, therefore, result in an unduly cramped form of development to the material detriment of the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, there would be conflict with policies C1 and C18 of the adopted Local Plan (NKLP)1 which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development within settlement curtilages does not adversely affect the character or appearance of the area and responds satisfactorily to its context in terms of layout and density. 9. The development would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) insofar as it would fail to take the opportunity to improve the character and quality of an area2. Though not yet part of the adopted Development Plan, the development would also conflict with policy LP26 of the emerging Local Plan (CLLP)3, which seeks to ensure development respects and enhances the character of an area. 10. There would, however, be no conflict with CLLP policy LP2 which merely establishes the settlement hierarchy into which development will be focussed. The appeal site lies in Heighington which is classed as a large village where 1 North Kesteven Local Plan – Adopted 2007 2 See paragraph 64 3 Central Lincolnshire Local Plan – Proposed Submission April 2016 Appeal Decision APP/R2520/W/16/3158688 3 some growth is considered acceptable. This does not, however, outweigh the harm I have identified. Living conditions 11. The Council’s concerns regarding amenity space are predicated on their assertion that the development could be used as an independent dwelling. I am mindful here that the planning application was clearly for an annexe and was the subject of an application to the Council as householder development. This is a significant material consideration. 12. As a result of its close physical relationship with the host dwelling and the layout of the appeal property in relation to its plot, it is not clear that occupation as an independent dwelling would meet the requirements of Development Plan policies or the Framework. This is particularly the case in terms of the provision of an adequate quantity and quality of amenity space and other potential impacts on living conditions within either the development or host dwelling. There would, for example, be related concerns over the nature of any pedestrian or vehicular access to the dwelling, which could have impacts in terms of privacy, noise and disturbance. 13. The Council have not provided a copy of their Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Residential Extensions, but from the evidence before me, it would appear that there is no blanket restriction on separate annexes, only that they are normally expected to be attached to the host dwelling. My attention has been drawn to decisions which suggest there are times when the Council has accepted that separate annexes can be permitted with similar levels of shared facility. As such, and with no substantive evidence to the contrary, it is not possible to conclude that the development would be in conflict with the SPD in terms of its function as an annexe. 14. From the information before me, as well as my site visit, the proposed accommodation would be clearly capable of functioning as either an annexe or independent dwelling. However, this does not automatically preclude it from being considered as an annexe. It has been suggested that any concerns relating to this could be adequately addressed by imposing a planning condition such that the occupation of the development would only be ancillary to the main dwelling. I have not received any substantive evidence that persuades me that such a condition would not be appropriate in this case. Therefore, had I been minded to allow the appeal, then the imposition of an appropriate condition would have been capable of providing the necessary comfort. 15. None of the NKLP policies put forward relate specifically to the issue of living conditions. However, assuming a condition was put in place, I would see no conflict with either paragraph 17 of the Framework or CLLP policy LP26 which seek to ensure good standards of amenity. Parking provision 16. The Council’s decision notice implies that issues relating to parking provision are a result of their concerns regarding the use of the development as an independent dwelling. Nevertheless, there is also reference in the officer report that, in any event, the development would lead to increased vehicle movements and there would be an inadequate level of parking provision. The Council have not specifically set out what harm they consider this would lead Appeal Decision APP/R2520/W/16/3158688 4 to, but it would be reasonable to assume that their concerns relate to obstructive and inconsiderate on-street parking and the any associated risks to highway and pedestrian safety and the convenience of local residents. 17. The Council’s evidence on parking matters is somewhat vague. NKLP policy T5 refers to planning permission being granted for development that is in accordance with the Council’s maximum parking standards, but these have not been provided to me. Moreover, the officer report neither quantifies the number of spaces that are currently available or would be required (either as an annexe or independent dwelling). As noted above, I am satisfied that the use of condition would ensure the development did not function independently and thus it would be reasonable to assume shared use of the spaces that are available in the garage and forecourt areas. 18. I have had regard to comments from interested parties relating to nearby on- street parking and obstructions. There was no evidence of this during my site visit, though I recognise that this represents only a snapshot and that demand for parking may increase into the evening and at weekends when people are not at work. However, there were also no objections from the highway authority relating to issues on the public highway and no evidence has been provided of any accidents or safety issues in the area. 19. As such, I have insufficient evidence before me to conclude that the development would not provide sufficient levels of off-street parking, would have an unacceptable impact on local parking provision or cause any material harm to highway or pedestrian safety, the efficient use of the transport network in the area or have any significant effect on the living conditions of nearby residents as a result. Accordingly, I can find no conflict with NKLP policy T5, which requires development to include provision in accordance with maximum standards or CLLP policy LP13 which seeks to ensure appropriate parking provision in new development. Other matters 20. I have had regard to the reasons why the appellant wishes to build the annexe. Such personal circumstances are not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified. 21. I have also noted that the Council have raised no concerns relating to any other aspect of the development. Nevertheless, this does not alter my overall conclusion that the development would be inappropriate by virtue of the over intensive use of the space and resulting impact on local character. Conclusion 22. Notwithstanding my conclusions on living conditions and parking, I find that the development would have an unacceptable impact on local character and appearance in conflict with local and national planning policy. For this reason, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. S J Lee INSPECTOR