Retention of the building within the curtilage and its use for purposes ancillary to the house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 April 2018 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/L3815/D/18/3194919 47 Wellington Gardens, Selsey, Chichester PO20 0RF  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 & Mrs Griffiths against the decision of Chichester District Council.  The application, Ref. SY/17/01892/DOM, dated 27 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 21 November 2017.  The development proposed is the retention of the building within the curtilage and its use for purposes ancillary to the house. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and retrospective permission granted for a single storey detached outbuilding ancillary to the house at 47 Wellington Gardens, Selsey, Chichester in accordance with the terms of the application Ref. SY/17/01892 /DOM, dated 27 June 2017, as subsequently amended, subject to the conditions in the attached Schedule. Preliminary Matter 2. The application description refers to ‘the retention of the building….’, but as ‘retention’ does not fall within the definition of ‘development’ for the purposes of planning legislation I have dealt with the appeal as being for retrospective permission for the erection of the building in its current position within the dwelling curtilage and its use for purposes ancillary to the house. Planning History and Main Issues 3. The planning history of the site includes three enforcement appeals and one section 78 appeal against the refusal of permission for ‘a self-contained annexe’. The appeals were dealt with concurrently and dismissed in a single Decision Letter on 13 September 2016. The Inspector’s observations and decisions in respect of these appeals carry substantial weight in this current appeal to the extent that the current proposal is comparable. 4. The main issues are (i) the effect of the building on the character and appearance of the area, and (ii) whether the building can reasonably be regarded as being used in future for ‘purposes ancillary to the house’. On this latter issue I have taken account of amendments to the scheme put forward in the grounds of appeal. Appeal Decision APP/L3815/D/18/3194919 2 Reasons 5. In respect of the first issue, I saw on my visit that the appeal dwelling is a semi-detached house at the end of a cul-de-sac that forms part of a medium density estate development, probably built in the second half of the 20th Century. The plot is triangular in shape and the large irregularly shaped outbuilding is positioned in the apex of the triangle, about 2m from the appeal dwelling’s boundary with the public realm in the form of a limb of Denny’s Close. This is the western side of the Close and has a relatively open aspect as it adjoins rear gardens with a boundary of a 1.8m high panelled fence. 6. The upper part of the rear wall and the roof of the outbuilding are clearly visible above the fence. In this regard I note that the September 2016 appeal Inspector observed ‘…… although it is partly screened by fencing, the upper part of it catches the eye as an incongruous, jarring feature in the street scene. This is partly due to the cladding material, which is a grey fibre cement boarding with metal corner infills, and partly due to its height. Because of its size, shape and position, it is not visually subordinate to the house at Number 47 and it looks unnaturally squeezed into its plot and so is disproportionate to its setting’. I wholly endorse my colleague Inspector’s assessment. 7. Turning to the second issue, the officer’s report has largely dealt with the fear that if retained the outbuilding could again be used as an independent dwelling (the previous Inspector identified evidence that appeared to demonstrate that this was the case, albeit with its occupation by a relative). This is not perhaps unreasonable given this history and both because the submitted plan shows a large lounge, a bedroom and an en-suite, and the fact that the building has access to a side gate that can be used independently from the host dwelling. Furthermore, the Council is right to observe that the design included a kitchen area and it would be very easy to add the necessary facilities to allow independent occupation with no dependency on the host dwelling. 8. The unacceptability of such an event has already been made clear by the previous Inspector in terms of both the effect on the character and appearance of the area and a failure to achieve a good standard of amenity for all occupants of land and buildings as stipulated in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (‘the Framework’). However, the application before me is the use of the building ‘for purposes ancillary to the house’ in the form of overflow accommodation, which is a change from the section 78 2016 appeal for a self- contained annex. 9. In this regard I have noted email correspondence between the appellants’ agent and the Council in which the latter accepts the changes made to the internal accommodation and access to the building go some way to the building being regarded as an annex, but considers that the fundamental point of its potential use as an independent unit of accommodation had not been addressed. However, the grounds of appeal seek to further amend the appellants’ position in that an amended plan proposes that the outbuilding be used as a home office and games room / playroom incidental to the dwelling rather than as ancillary accommodation. The appellants have also decided to move and the outbuilding is no longer required to accommodate a parent. Appeal Decision APP/L3815/D/18/3194919 3 10. Of further significance is the fallback position and in email correspondence the Council has not disputed that, leaving aside the exact use of the outbuilding, the structure could be re-erected on the same site under permitted development. I am aware that this issue of ‘fallback’ was raised in the 2016 appeal, but the Inspector’s rejection of it was in relation to the building’s past and proposed use as an additional dwelling independent from No. 47. 11. The materiality of a fallback position in the decision-making process is in part influenced by the likelihood of its implementation, and there is now extensive case law that there need only be greater than a theoretical possibility that the permitted development might take place (in this case the re-erection of the building on the same site, with the continuation in perpetuity of the substantial harm already caused). Despite the substantial cost of this retention option, given its implications for an enhanced value of the house it would still be significantly more viable than the alternative of outbuilding’s demolition with the sale of the second hand materials to a third party for re-erection elsewhere. I therefore attach significant weight to the fallback in this case. 12. I am also mindful of Government policy in the Planning Practice Guidance 2014 that conditions can and should be imposed to enable development proposals to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary to refuse permission, by mitigating the adverse effects of development. In this instance the problem of independent use and its effect on the character of the area and residential amenity has now been resolved subject to ongoing monitoring, and the main issue is now the adverse physical impact of the building on its surroundings. 13. I have already made clear my view on this point with my agreement with the previous Inspector’s findings summarised in paragraph 6 above, but I consider that the incongruous and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area through the upper part of the building being visible from Denny’s Close can be addressed by a robust condition. The exact details would be a matter for the Council to agree, but I am satisfied that the existing interwoven panel fencing is of insufficient standard. It needs to be replaced by a good quality close boarded fencing of up to 2 metres and surmounted by a metre high trellis, with climbing plants on the fence and a row of evergreen trees or shrubs inside the fence line. 14. Other conditions to safeguard the character and appearance of the area and to regulate the outbuilding’s future use are required. These comprise compliance with the amended and now approved plans; the restriction to incidental use to the dwelling; the restriction of alterations to the outbuilding; the restriction of any form of enclosure of the outbuilding within the garden, and its re-painting with a more suitable colour. 15. With the imposition and subsequent enforcement if and when necessary of these conditions, I consider that the screened outbuilding can remain without having an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area in harmful conflict with Policy 33 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014- 2029 and the core planning principles and Section 7: ‘Requiring Good Design’ of the Framework. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/L3815/D/18/3194919 4 Schedule of Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1 (Amended) Floor Plan showing Games Room/Playroom & Home Office; 2: Elevations; 3: Section (but with ‘Lounge’ deleted); 4: Roof Plan; 5: Site Plan; 6: OS based Location Plan; 2) The building hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes incidental to the residential use of the dwelling known as 47 Wellington Gardens, Selsey; 3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking, re- enacting or modifying that Order with or without modification) no alterations permitted by Class E of Part 1 Schedule 2 shall be erected on or made to the building without a grant of planning permission; 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 47 Wellington Gardens, Selsey to separate or provide enclosure of the outbuilding hereby permitted from the remainder of the garden of the dwelling; 5) Within three months of the date of this Decision, the exterior of the building shall be painted in accordance with details first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority; 6) Within three months of the date of this Decision or such other longer period as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a replacement fence and associated landscaping shall be provided for the full extent of the boundary of the property with Denny’s Close and its return section to meet the boundary between Nos. 47 and 49 in accordance with details first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the replacement fence and associated landscaping are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.