Detached annexe to rear

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 February 2021 by M Russell BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11March 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/L2440/D/20/3265093 67 Orson Drive, Wigston LE18 2EL • 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 D McMurty against the decision of Oadby & Wigston Borough Council. • The application Ref 20/00387/FUL, dated 8 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 13 October 2020. • The development proposed is detached annexe to rear. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issues are: (a) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and (b) if there is any harm identified under main issue (a), whether such harm is outweighed by the personal circumstances put forward by the appellant. Reasons Character and appearance 3. Orson Drive is situated within a close-knit residential area and is predominantly characterised by two-storey terraced and semi-detached dwellings with a frontage to the street. The long rear gardens of the row of dwellings that the appeal site sits within back on to the similarly proportioned gardens serving residential properties on Aylestone Lane. The consistency in terms of garden lengths and the more often modestly scaled outbuildings within them provides a pleasant and spacious character and appearance to the rear of these dwellings. 4. The Oadby and Wigston Borough Council Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2019) expects amongst other things that annexes are linked internally to the main existing dwelling and to be designed in such a manner as to easily enable the annexe to be used at a later date as an integral part of the main existing dwelling. 5. The bulk and mass of the building would be significantly larger than the scale of outbuildings generally seen in the area. The building would be set away Appeal Decision APP/L2440/D/20/3265093 2 from, and would have a larger footprint than, the host dwelling. The level of accommodation would also include all habitable accommodation necessary to facilitate independent living. Together these factors would not result in a building of ancillary character or appearance and the development would appear incongruous when appreciated from neighbouring rear windows and gardens. The planting that exists and the hipped roof incorporated would not be sufficient to assimilate the building into its surroundings. 6. My attention has been drawn to alternative drawings which show annexe accommodation provided by way of a linked extension to the dwelling. The appellant contends that these drawings raise concerns in respect of neighbouring living conditions and have therefore not been advanced. Whether or not this is the case, this does not justify the harm that would result from the appeal proposal. The appellant has also offered to alter the size or position of the structure. However, my assessment must be based on the drawings that were before the Council when it made its decision. 7. With regards to the outbuildings visible on the aerial photograph provided, I am not aware of the full details of these buildings including their dimensions, use and whether or not they required planning permission. In any case, they do not persuade me that the annexe would be in keeping with the prevailing character and appearance of the area. 8. I conclude that the development would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. In that regard it would be contrary to the requirements for development to respect local character and be in keeping with the area in which it is situated in Policies 6 (High Quality Design and Materials) and 44 (Landscape and Character) of the Borough of Oadby and Wigston Local Plan (2019). The development would also conflict with the good design requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and the annexe guidance in the SPD. Personal circumstances and the planning balance 9. Paragraph 12 of the Framework confirms amongst other things that the development plan is the starting point for decision making and where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan permission should not usually be granted. 10. I have concluded that the development would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. I have carefully considered the reasons why the appellant has applied for planning permission including the personal circumstances of an elderly relative who has a health condition. The proposed annexe would provide accommodation for this relative. I have no doubt that the proposals would be of benefit to the appellant in providing support to their relative whilst also reducing the relative’s living costs. These are personal circumstances to which I afford weight in favour of the appeal. In weighing the personal circumstances in the balance, this has to be considered against the very significant effect that the development would have upon the character and appearance of the area. 11. I have given due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected Appeal Decision APP/L2440/D/20/3265093 3 characteristic and people who do not share it. I have also had regard to the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. 12. In respect of the above, a refusal of planning permission is a proportionate and necessary approach to the legitimate aim of ensuring that the character and appearance of the area can be reasonably safeguarded. Furthermore, the protection of the public interest cannot be achieved by means that are less interfering of the appellant and their family members human rights. Therefore, whilst I acknowledge the personal circumstances of the appellant’s relative, this is not a matter which outweighs the significant harm that would be caused by the proposal to the character and appearance of the area. 13. No further material considerations have been advanced of sufficient weight to justify a decision other than in accordance with the up-to-date development plan. Conclusion 14. For the reasons set out, the appeal is dismissed. M Russell INSPECTOR