Extend and convert existing domestic outbuilding to ‘annexe’ for habitable purposes, ancillary to the existing dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 December 2017 by Kenneth Stone BSc Hons DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 11th December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/L2820/D/17/3187325 140 King Street, Kettering, Northhamptonshire NN16 8QR  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 Mr Alex Forsey against the decision of Kettering Borough Council.  The application Ref KET/2017/0398, dated 22 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 21 July 2017.  The development proposed is described as ’extend and convert existing domestic outbuilding to ‘annexe’ for habitable purposes, ancillary to the existing dwelling . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to extend and convert existing domestic outbuilding to ‘annexe’ for habitable purposes, ancillary to the existing dwelling at 140 King Street, Kettering, Northamptonshire NN16 8QR in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref KET/2017/0398, dated 22 May 2017, subject to the conditions contained in the schedule at the end of this decision. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on; firstly, the character and appearance of the locality; and secondly, the living conditions of the occupiers of the surrounding properties, with regard to noise and disturbance. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal site presently contains a terraced red brick two storey house with a narrow garden at the end of which is a small ancillary outbuilding. The outbuilding is in similar brick work to the house, has a high mono pitch and has a small wooden and glass addition to the side. The Council refer to an existing close boarded fence in the garden however at the time of my visit there was no fence sub-dividing the garden area. 4. The proposed alterations and additions to the outbuilding would replace the existing mono pitched roof with a pitched roof having a central ridge. The additional wooden structure would be demolished and the footprint of the outbuilding extended. The extended outbuilding would project no further into the garden area than the existing building and the overall footprint would be a Appeal Decision APP/L2820/D/17/3187325 2 limited increase on the total footprint of the existing building. There would be a limited increase in height from the alteration to the roof but this would move the existing highest point off the boundary to a more central location within the site. The site is contained to the rear by a high brick wall and there is mature landscaping along the side boundaries. The alterations and extensions would have limited effect on the appearance of the area as the bulk, mass and scale of the building would be only marginally larger than that which presently exists. 5. The site is in a compact tight urban location with narrow plots and many of the surrounding properties containing outbuildings towards the rear of the plots. On this basis the proposal would not result in significant change to the appearance and character of the area. Moreover the building is set in a discreet location at the rear of the property on ground that has a gentle slope down away from the house. The building would not be visible from public locations and from the immediately adjoining properties the extended building would replace an existing structure of similar proportions. 6. For the reasons given above I conclude that the proposed development would not result in material harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently it would not conflict with Policy 8 of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (2016) which, amongst other matters, seeks development to respond to the sites immediate context and local character. This is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which advises that planning should seek to secure high quality design and take account of the character of local areas and seek to reinforce local distinctiveness. Living conditions 7. The plans provide for a kitchen area, shower and WC and a living area that would be large enough to accommodate sleeping facilities. The constrained nature of the building and the site, with the limited size of the garden area, would make use of the site as an independent dwelling unacceptable, given the relationship with the existing house and the limited amenity space. The ancillary use of the building in association with the main house would not result in these adverse effects as any occupation would be in association with the main property and the shared spaces. This is the basis on which the application has been submitted. A condition can be used to secure the use of the outbuilding is used for ancillary purposes to the main property for residential use. This does not require the demolition of the building and therefore overcomes the Council’s concerns that it would an unreasonable condition. The ancillary occupation would not result in additional refuse storage requirements as existing facilities would be part of the ancillary arrangements. Parking for the existing property is not limited and there would be no significant increase above what may result by occupation of the main property by people of driving age rather than a young family. 8. The occupation of the building given its limited size would be limited in terms of the numbers of additional occupants at the property. The main use would be as residential use. The main building is in residential use and the outbuilding is an existing facility which could be used for ancillary purposes to the house. The garden area would be continued to be used as garden and the limited Appeal Decision APP/L2820/D/17/3187325 3 increase in occupation that may result would not significantly increase the use or activity in this space. 9. The site is located in a tight urban environment with properties closely spaced and having limited separation. The general level of activity in the surrounding properties and the resultant environment this creates for the occupants of neighbouring properties is an existing environment and this would not be significantly altered by these modest proposals. 10. For the reasons given above I conclude that the proposed development would not result in material harm to the living conditions of the occupants of the surrounding properties as a result of additional noise and disturbance. Consequently it would not conflict with policy 8 of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (2016) which, amongst other matters, seeks development that does not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area. This is consistent with the Framework which that advises planning should seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Other matters 11. The Council were concerned that the site was sub-divided by an existing fence and this created further concern as to the independent nature of the proposed use. At the time of my visit no such fence was in place and it had been removed. I agree that the installation of any fencing or demarcation that may appear to create a degree of independence for the outbuilding would be inappropriate and therefore impose a condition to prevent the erection of any fencing or means of enclosure. The garden area is already constrained and its subdivision would unacceptably limit its use for the existing property. To maintain the ancillary relationship between the outbuilding and house it would be appropriate to ensure no such fencing was re-erected. Overall conclusions and conditions 12. I am satisfied that the proposed development would not result in material harm to the character and appearance of the area or the living conditions of the occupants of surrounding properties in the area. A number of conditions are required to ensure that the development is acceptable and these include an approved plans condition to ensure there is no doubt as to what has been approved; a restriction on the occupation of the building to an ancillary use associated with the residential use of the main house for the reasons given above; and a restriction on fencing also for the reasons given above. I have also imposed a condition on materials in the interest of the appearance of the development and a requirement for the side window to be obscure glazed to protect the privacy of adjoining neighbours and the occupants of the outbuilding. 13. Overall I am satisfied that the proposed development is in accordance with the development plan and there are no material consideration to indicate a decision otherwise should be taken. 14. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Kenneth Stone Appeal Decision APP/L2820/D/17/3187325 4 INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/L2820/D/17/3187325 5 Schedule of conditions for appeal APP/L2820/D/17/3187325 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 01, 02B, 03A and KET/2017/0398/1A. 3) The extended outbuilding hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as 140 King Street, Kettering. 4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no fences, gates or walls shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling known as 140 King Street, Kettering. 5) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing outbuilding. 6) The building/extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the windows on the ground floor western elevation have been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. END