Demolish existing outbuilding and form new annex building with connected services as spill over accommodation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 March 2021 by Mrs H Nicholls FdA MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 April 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/P1133/D/21/3266286 2 Rydon Gardens, Newton Road, Bishopsteignton TQ14 9PP • 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 Ms Julie Mackay against the decision of Teignbridge District Council. • The application Ref 20/01624/HOU, dated 10 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 3 November 2020. • The development proposed is demolish existing outbuilding and form new annex building with connected services as spill over accommodation. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing outbuilding and formation of new annex building with connected services as spill over accommodation at 2 Rydon Gardens, Newton Road, Bishopsteignton, TQ14 9PP, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20/01624/HOU dated 10 September 2020, subject to the following conditions: 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: • Location Plan, Ref S1, dated 10 September 2020 • Proposed Site Plan, Ref PL2 Rev A, dated 5 October 2020 • Proposed Plan-Elevations, Ref PL3 Rev A, dated 5 October 2020 3) The building hereby approved shall be used solely as ancillary floorspace in connection with the host dwelling (2 Rydon Gardens, Bishopsteignton) and shall not be used, let, leased or otherwise disposed of for any other purpose. Main Issue 2. The main issue is whether the development would be ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling or a separate independent dwelling. Reasons 3. The appeal dwelling is a substantially sized property that sits within an extensive curtilage facing towards the River Teign. It is close to, but outside of the settlement limits for Bishopsteignton and also lies within the designated Undeveloped Coast. Appeal Decision APP/P1133/D/21/3266286 2 4. The appeal proposal is to demolish an existing domestic outbuilding and construct a single storey annexe on a broadly similar footprint. The annexe would contain a bedroom, living/kitchen space and small bathroom. The building would be sited within an area used for plant and vegetable cultivation which is partially enclosed by an evergreen hedge. There is only a single point of vehicular access to the dwelling and curtilage from Flow Lane. 5. The host dwelling has an attached clinic, which is a homeworking base for the appellant. This is considered to be ancillary to the primary use of the single planning unit in residential (C3) use. The dwelling and attached clinic are otherwise situated within a private garden mainly laid to lawn with established trees and a degree of formality which also exists at the front of the dwelling. In my view, the area surrounding the existing outbuilding to be demolished also falls within the domestic curtilage of the host dwelling as part of the same single planning unit. 6. The annexe is intended to provide overspill primary accommodation for guests of the appellant as/when necessary. The overall amount of additional accommodation would be modest relative to the size of the host dwelling. It would continue to share the single point of access and existing parking area. No further boundary demarcation is planned and it would have only limited kitchen facilities in order to maintain a degree of reliance on the host dwelling. 7. Although it would not be physically attached, the proximity of the annexe to the host dwelling and its presence within an otherwise secluded garden would, in combination with the other aforementioned factors, make the formation of a separate dwelling unit unlikely. This view is also expressed by the appellant who seeks to maintain the seclusion enjoyed within the dwelling and garden that would be otherwise undermined by the proximity of, and comings and goings of occupiers of an independent household. 8. In my view, the provision of the modestly-scaled accommodation relative to the scale of the host dwelling and its intended use for occasional overspill accommodation with shared access, parking and curtilage, would not conflict with Policies S1, S1A, S2, S22, EN2 or WE8 of the Teignbridge Local Plan (2014). It would not, in itself, generate additional reliance on vehicles in a location outside of the settlement limit. Given its modest scale, enclosure by hedges and appropriate design, nor would it harm the character or appearance of the area or wider Undeveloped Coast. Consequently, it would also accord with Policy BSC5 of the Bishopsteignton Neighbourhood Plan (2017). Other Matters 9. I note the Parish Council’s request for an ecology survey. The Council has not suggested such a condition and given the condition of the site, existing building and modest scale of the proposal, one does not appear necessary. Conclusion 10. The proposal complies with the development plan, when read as a whole. There are no considerations of sufficient materiality to indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance therewith. 11. For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed. Appeal Decision APP/P1133/D/21/3266286 3 Conditions 12. In addition to the statutory time limit, a condition is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty. 13. In order to ensure that the annexe is maintained as part of the single planning unit and used only in conjunction with the main dwelling, a condition is necessary to specify the terms of its permitted use. Hollie Nicholls INSPECTOR