Demolition of existing single garage and erection of annex extension for dependents, separate from the main dwelling with parking facilities

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 April 2018 by Neil Pope BA (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N1160/D/17/3191115 86, St. Levan Road, Plymouth, Devon, PL2 3AF.  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 and Mrs D Cross against the decision of Plymouth City Council.  The application Ref. 17/01383/FUL, dated 29 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 28 September 2017.  The development proposed is the demolition of existing single garage and erection of annex extension for dependents, separate from the main dwelling with parking facilities. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Reasons 2. The proposal would comprise a self-contained annex at the end of the appellants’ long rear garden. This one bedroom first floor unit would be a similar size and design to an existing building within the rear garden of No.78 and would be smaller than the dwellings that have been built along the north side of Melville Terrace Lane. Adequate garden space would be retained to avoid creating any cramped effect or harm to the character or appearance of this residential area. Garaging in the space below the annexe would ensure the proposal did not give rise to parking problems along the adjacent service lane and there is no cogent evidence to demonstrate the proposal would result in any significant loss of light to the solar panels on the garage roof of No.88. 3. The annex would enable the appellants to care for their elderly relatives and would provide the intended occupants with adequate privacy, parking and amenity space. Although there is an element of doubt in my mind as to the appropriateness of providing accommodation, accessible only by stairs, for use by those who could be infirm, on balance, the access provision would be adequate. Whilst the Council’s Guidelines1 seek to avoid annexes that are severed from the main dwelling, the proposal would not result in sub-standard accommodation. A planning condition, restricting the occupancy of the annex, could be attached to a permission to prevent it becoming a separate dwelling. 4. However, I share the Council’s concerns that the proposal would result in overlooking of the rear gardens of Nos. 84 and 88 and a harmful loss of privacy for neighbouring residents. Even if the proposed full height glazed double doors and window to the bedroom were fitted with obscure glazing and a 1 Development Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document First Review 2013 Appeal Decision APP/N1160/D/17/3191115 2 frosted glass railing was installed along the external balcony, it would still be possible to see into the rear gardens of these neighbouring properties. 5. These new openings and balcony would be south facing. Occupiers of the annex could reasonably be expected to spend much time using these parts of the building with the doors and window open and/or sitting or standing on the balcony. At best, neighbouring residents would have the perception of being overlooked from close quarters and would be likely to feel uncomfortable trying to relax in their private rear gardens. The proposal would unacceptably harm the living conditions of those living alongside. It would be at odds with national2 and local3 planning policies that are aimed at securing a good standard of amenity for existing occupiers of land and buildings. 6. Each case must be determined on its own merits and the Council has not informed me of pressure for other similar developments in the area. The proposal would be unlikely therefore to set a harmful precedent which the Council would have difficulty resisting elsewhere. Nevertheless, neither this nor the benefits the proposal would provide to the appellants and their family would be sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified to the living conditions of neighbouring residents. 7. Having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. Neil Pope Inspector 2 The National Planning Policy Framework. 3 Policy CS34(6) of the Plymouth Core Strategy 2006-2021, adopted in 2007.