Conversion of garage to residential annex (retrospective)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 March 2018 by David Troy BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Y0435/D/17/3191079 4 Penshurst Crescent, Ashland, Milton Keynes MK6 4AJ  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 Rahul Islam against the decision of Milton Keynes Council.  The application Ref 17/02116/FUL, dated 2 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 10 October 2017.  The development is conversion of garage to residential annex (retrospective). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The conversion of the garage to a residential annexe has already taken place and I have considered the appeal on this basis accordingly. 3. I have used the Council’s description of the development in reaching my decision as it more fully describes the details of the development than that given on the original planning application form. The appellant’s appeal form also makes reference to the updated description. I shall determine the appeal on this basis accordingly. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the development on: (i) whether the annexe would be ancillary or incidental to the main dwelling or a separate independent dwelling unit; (ii) the impact on the character and appearance of the area; and (iii) whether appropriate provision is made for off-street parking in the interests of highway safety. Reasons Ancillary or incidental to the main dwelling or a separate independent dwelling unit 5. The appeal site comprises of a detached double garage located in the rear garden of No. 4 Penshurst Crescent (No. 4), a detached three storey dwelling that occupies a corner position within a new residential estate. Vehicular access is provided via a gated entrance to the side of the property. The development involves the conversion of the detached garage to an annexe to provide a one- bedroomed unit with kitchen, lounge, bedroom and a shower/WC. Appeal Decision APP/Y0435/D/17/3191079 2 6. It is a matter of fact and degree as to whether or not the development would be occupied as an annexe or an independent separate dwelling. In assessing this, it is necessary to consider whether the building could function as an annexe. Although the annexe is not physically attached to the rear of the main dwelling, the garage building is sited in a relatively small garden plot and within the residential curtilage of No. 4. The occupants of the annexe would share the same vehicular site access and use of the existing rear garden. 7. However, access to the annexe is provided via a doorway from the rear garden and from a separate access from an alleyway running along the rear boundary of the site. This separate independent pedestrian access allows access to the annexe without any need to pass through the main dwelling or its curtilage. The annexe has also been fitted out with mains gas, water and electricity. The submitted drawings show the building has all of the accommodation available for independent occupation separate from the main dwelling. It is also detached and sited away from the main building, which together could further facilitate occupation independent of the main dwelling. 8. I have considered the appellant’s arguments that garage conversion under permitted development are common in the area. However, the layout of the annexe does not portray what would be expected to be an ancillary or incidental addition to the main dwelling. Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order allows buildings that are required for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. Whilst these incidental purposes are capable of including a wide range of uses, the Courts have held that they do not include primary residential accommodation such as a kitchen or bedroom. 9. In addition, I note from the Council’s submission that an application was made and subsequently withdrawn, to convert the garage into an independent dwelling following an enforcement investigation arising from the advertisement of the building as private rental accommodation. This adds to my doubt as to whether the building was genuinely intended for an incidental use to the main dwelling. 10. Whilst I noted during my site visit that the appellant had removed the kitchen area from the garage building and the appellant’s willingness to carry out further works, including removing the doorway onto the alleyway via an appropriate condition, in my view, those would not address the fact that the building appears to have been fitted out in a manner that facilitates its use for primary residential purposes, which, even if they are ancillary, have been held in other cases not to be incidental. This could only be satisfactorily addressed through the removal of the primary residential type of accommodation (kitchen, living room and bedroom) which would not only result in a building that would be less residential in appearance but also genuinely incidental and subservient in use to the main dwellinghouse. 11. Therefore taken together the evidence suggests very strongly that, as a matter of fact and degree, what has been constructed is, on the balance of probabilities, able to function as a separate independent dwelling unit. Given, the reasonable likelihood that the building could be occupied as a separate independent dwelling unit, I do not consider that a planning condition requiring ancillary occupation of the annexe to address the unacceptable impacts of the development would be effective and enforceable in this case. Appeal Decision APP/Y0435/D/17/3191079 3 Character and appearance of the area 12. The detached garage building and rear garden of the appeal property is enclosed by a metal entrance gate and brick boundary wall of about 2m in height. Given the enclosed nature of the site and limited external changes to the built form of the building, I consider the development has limited visual impact on the area. 13. However, the development does introduce an uncharacteristic layout into the area. Although, in general terms, rear gardens may contain various structures incidental to the use of the dwelling house, the intensity of use of a separate independent dwelling unit is likely to be materially different in its planning character. In particular, it is likely to lead to a level of comings and goings from vehicles and pedestrians of a general intensity of use that would be higher than might be expected of an incidental building. 14. Paragraph 60 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that it is proper to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness. In this case, the siting of the development and the additional associated activities with the development does not amount to a subservient form of development in this location and would fail to promote or reinforce the distinctive characteristics of this established residential area. 15. It results in an awkward relationship with the main dwelling and potentially results in the occupants of No. 4 and the neighbouring properties suffering a loss of privacy and adverse impacts from noise and disturbance, especially from the use of the separate pedestrian access and the small garden and driveway to the rear of the main dwelling. Occupation independent from the main house would therefore be an unacceptable form of development harmful to character of the area and the living conditions of the occupants of No. 4 and the neighbouring properties. I am not satisfied that a planning condition requiring ancillary occupation of the annexe would prevent the harm I have identified from occurring. 16. Consequently, I conclude that the development adversely harms the character and appearance of the area. It conflicts with Policy CS13 of the Milton Keynes Core Strategy 2013 and Saved Policies D2 (ii) and D2A (i) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 (2005) (LP), insofar as they seek to ensure that developments are of a high quality design that responds to the local character and distinctiveness of the area. In addition, it does not accord with the aims of the Framework that development should seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing occupants of land and buildings (paragraph 17). Parking 17. Whilst the garage conversion has resulted in loss of off-street provision, the development has access to the off-street parking facilities provided on car hardstanding in front of the garage. There are no parking restrictions outside the appeal site and at the time of my site visit, there were parking spaces available along Penshurst Crescent and on the nearby streets. 18. In view of the scale of development and the evidence before me, I consider that the additional traffic and extra demand for on-street parking generated by the development is likely to be relatively small. Therefore, I consider that the Appeal Decision APP/Y0435/D/17/3191079 4 effect is likely to be only marginal and certainly not severe, the test set by the Framework1 for preventing development on highway grounds. In any event, the appeal site is located in a relatively sustainable location within easy walking distance of the local services and facilities and public transport services and as such provides a viable alternative to the use of the car. 19. Consequently, I conclude that the development makes appropriate provision for off-street parking and would not have an adverse effect on highway safety in the area. The development is therefore consistent with the aims of Saved LP Policy T15 that require development proposals, amongst other things, to provide satisfactory parking provision and would not result in an increase in off-street parking problems that cannot be resolved by on-street parking controls. Other matters 20. I have noted the objections raised by a local resident and the comments made by the Parish Council to the development. However, in light of my findings on the main issues of the appeal above, my decision does not turn on these matters. Conclusion 21. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. David Troy INSPECTOR 1 Paragraphs 32 of the Framework