To convert the existing garage into a ‘granny annexe

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 April 2021 by David Reed BSc DipTP DMS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Decision date: 30 April 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/U1620/D/21/3268009 6 Heathville Road, Gloucester GL1 3DP • 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 Ian Meredith against the decision of Gloucester City Council. • The application Ref 20/01034/FUL, dated 15 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 28 January 2021. • The development proposed is to convert the existing garage into a ‘granny annexe’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the street scene including the Denmark Road Conservation Area (CA); and • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 43 Alexandra Road in relation to outlook and sunlight. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The proposal is to convert the existing single garage in the rear garden of No 6 Heathfield Road, a detached house on the corner of Alexandra Road, into a granny annexe. The appeal site lies on the edge of the Denmark Road CA, a well-established residential area characterised by large Edwardian style villas, although No 6 and the adjacent No 43 Alexandra Road appear more recent in date. The Council do not oppose the principle of such an annexe but object to the design and impact of this particular application. 4. The existing garage is a modest single storey structure, about 3.5 m wide and 8 m long, of red brick like the adjacent houses and with a fully hipped, pitched roof. The garage lies to the rear of the house at the end of a short driveway off Alexandra Road and adjacent to the neighbouring property No 43. 5. The proposal would involve an increase in the width of the building from about 3.5 m to about 5.5 m together with an increase in the eaves height to about 3.6 m and the ridge height to about 5.5 m. The existing hipped roof would also be replaced with a full gable at each end, significantly increasing the visual impact of the building when seen from Alexandra Road. The overall effect Appeal Decision APP/U1620/D/21/3268009 2 would be an idiosyncratic, oddly proportioned building, unduly excessive in its height, scale and bulk for an ancillary building in this location. 6. The resulting annexe building would be incongruous in the street scene and out of character in the context of the two-storey detached houses on either side. The appellant draws attention to two buildings in the vicinity as precedents but these are a modest extension to a large scale nursery building opposite and a double garage adjacent and subservient to a large villa. Neither are therefore comparable to a building ancillary to a two storey dwelling as in this case. 7. For these reasons the proposal would significantly harm the character and appearance of the street scene and the Denmark Road CA. This would conflict with Policies SD4 and SD8 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2017 (the JCS) which require development proposals to address the urban structure and grain of the locality in terms of mass and form and to conserve and enhance heritage assets and their local distinctiveness. It would also conflict with the legislative test for development in conservation areas. Living conditions 8. The annexe building would be located alongside the common boundary with No 43 only a metre or so away and would also extend nearly up to its rear boundary. The combined effect of raising the eaves height of the building to about 3.6 m and substituting a gable end for the existing hipped roof would significantly increase its bulk close to the relatively small external amenity area of No 43. Although the current occupiers have not objected, this would be overbearing and result in an undue sense of enclosure in the rear garden concerned. Sited to the west, the building would also result in a significant loss of direct sunlight in the late afternoon/evening. 9. For these reasons the proposal would significantly harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 43 Alexandra Road in relation to outlook and sunlight. This would conflict with JCS Policy SD14 which seeks to ensure development causes no unacceptable harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupants. Other matters 10. The appellant argues that permitted development rights for ancillary buildings in the curtilage of a dwelling support the proposal. Whilst the building would only occupy a small proportion of the plot, two-storey buildings are precluded and the eaves and ridge heights would exceed the 2.5 m and 4 m limits1. Conclusion 11. Having regard to the above the appeal should be dismissed. David Reed INSPECTOR 1 Schedule 2 Part 1 Class E of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015