Granny annex at rear of garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 July 2018 by H Lock BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W5780/W/18/3200058 18 Keswick Gardens, ILFORD, IG4 5NB  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 Taj Hassan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge.  The application Ref. 5492/17, dated 28 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 31 January 2018.  The development proposed is granny annex at rear of garden. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for granny annex at rear of garden at 18 Keswick Gardens, ILFORD, IG4 5NB, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. Ref. 5492/17, dated 28 November 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: site location plan; 001; and 002. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the main building, 18 Keswick Gardens. 4) The building hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as 18 Keswick Gardens, ILFORD, IG4 5NB. Procedural Matter 2. Since the planning application was determined the Council has adopted the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (RLP), and this replaces the Core Strategy and Borough Wide Primary Policies. As such, Policies SP3, BD1 and BD5 referred to on the decision notice are no longer in force, and I have therefore determined this appeal on the basis of the ‘emerging’, and now adopted, policies cited in the decision. It is noted that although Policy LP30 is listed in the decision, the emerging policy referred to in the Council’s delegated report is LP29, and it this policy, rather than LP30, which was supplied by the Council with the questionnaire. I have therefore taken this policy into account. Appeal Decision APP/W5780/W/18/3200058 2 Main Issues 3. The main issues are (1) whether the proposal would constitute a separate dwelling; (2) the effect on the character of the appeal property and area; and (3) the effect of the proposed building on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular reference to outlook and disturbance. Reasons Whether a Separate Dwelling 4. The appeal proposal seeks a detached outbuilding at the end of the garden to 18 Keswick Gardens. The appeal is accompanied by a supporting statement which sets out the proposed occupancy of the building and the functional relationship that it would have with the main house. Whilst the building would have accommodation sufficient for independent living, on the basis of the information provided by the appellant I am satisfied that there would be a functional link between the main house and the use of the proposed outbuilding. An appropriately worded planning condition would provide sufficient safeguards to control its occupancy. Whilst I appreciate the council’s analysis of the proposal as a separate dwelling, that is not the proposal before me and I have determined the appeal accordingly. 5. The Council’s report states that the proposal would conflict with RLP Policy LP7, which seeks to resist the use of outbuildings ordinarily used for ancillary purposes in a garden as separate sleeping and living accommodation. However, the policy allows for the subdivision of housing plots subject to compliance with certain space standards, and having independent access. The Council’s report confirms that the standards would be met in this case. 6. However, whilst the proposal would appear to be compliant with RLP Policy LP7, on the basis of the information supplied in this appeal, I conclude that the proposal would not constitute a separate dwelling. Character and Appearance 7. The appeal property is a mid-terrace house in an area of similarly styled properties. There is a rear access road that runs between the houses fronting Keswick Gardens and Derwent Gardens beyond. This road provides access to garages and other buildings located in the rear gardens. The size, scale, design and materials of these outbuildings vary considerably, but many occupy the full width of the site to which they relate. Many have garage doors, but others do not and appear to be used for non-parking purposes. 8. In this context, the proposed building would not be dissimilar in size and scale to others in the vicinity. Additionally, the construction of the building on the rear boundary is a pattern found elsewhere along this stretch. Although not yet constructed, the appellant has drawn attention to a planning permission granted at the neighbouring property, 20 Keswick Gardens, for the ‘construction of granny annex at rear of garden’ under ref. 2588/16. Although the building configuration is slightly different from the appeal proposal, the footprint of the two is almost the same. The eaves and ridge heights of the building approved for No.20 are higher than proposed in this case. In both cases, separate access may be obtained onto the rear access road, albeit access from the annex at No.20 would be via the garden rather than the building itself. Appeal Decision APP/W5780/W/18/3200058 3 9. The application plan at No.20 did not include a detailed internal layout, but its stated use was as a ‘granny annex’ and the supporting statement made clear its intended occupancy. On this basis, the proposed building and its use would be in keeping with the character of the area, and would reflect the general mix of ancillary buildings in the vicinity. 10. There would be a reasonable degree of separation between the host property and proposed building. The remaining garden would be sufficient to provide an appropriate setting for the main dwelling, and its character and appearance would be preserved. 11. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not detract from the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area, and would accord with the aims of RLP Policy LP26 to seek high quality design, which amongst other criteria respects the local character of the area, and makes a positive architectural and urban design contribution to its context and location; and is well integrated and has regard to and respect for the surrounding area, in terms including layout, form, style, massing, and scale. Living conditions 12. The appeal property and neighbouring houses have reasonably long rear gardens, and both properties either side have their own outbuildings. Along the terrace, the ends of gardens tend to have a more functional role, and in this case the proposed building would be set away from the more private amenity spaces. The distance between the proposal and the neighbouring buildings appears to be more generous than indicated in the Council’s officer report, and I do not consider that it would appear as an unacceptably dominant or visually intrusive addition in the outlook for adjacent residents. Whilst I acknowledge that use for living accommodation, albeit ancillary to the main house, would introduce an additional degree of activity at the site, this would not be materially greater than that of the main house, and would not result in nuisance and disturbance for adjacent residents. 13. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not diminish the outlook for residents of neighbouring dwellings, or cause disturbance, to a degree that their living conditions would be harmed, and would therefore accord with the aims of RLP Policy LP26, which seeks to ensure that development does not result in an adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in matters including outlook and noise. Conditions 14. In addition to the standard time limit, I have attached a condition specifying the approved drawings as this provides certainty. It is also appropriate to control materials to match the existing dwelling, in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the development and the area. Although not requested by the Council, I have attached a condition to restrict the use of the proposed building to ancillary accommodation to the host house. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. H Lock INSPECTOR