Second storey side extension to form family annexe

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 July 2017 by G Powys Jones MSc FRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 19 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z0116/D/18/3201161 6 Woodcote Road, Bristol, BS16 4DE  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 George Cross against the decision of Bristol City Council.  The application Ref 17/06645/H, dated 30 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 16 February 2018.  The development proposed is a second storey side extension to form family annexe. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a second storey side extension to form family annexe at 6 Woodcote Road, Bristol, BS16 4DE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/06645/H, dated 30 November 2017, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule. Main issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the development on (a) the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings, and (b) whether, as asserted by the Council, the accommodation created falls to be considered as an annexe or as a new dwellinghouse. Reasons Character and appearance 3. Woodcote Road is set within a formally laid out residential estate, containing a variety of house types. The appeal property however is a semi-detached dwelling, similar to others in the street. The Council’s concerns relate principally to the scale and mass of the proposed extension and that its’ ‘set- back’ from the host property’s front elevation is less than advised in the Council’s design guidance. 4. But as the appellant rightly points out, the Council’s assessment fails to take account of the side extension carried out with the benefit of planning permission to the adjoining property, 8 Woodcote Road. The proposed extension is designed on similar lines to that seen at No 8, and I share the appellant’s view that a significant and beneficial element of symmetry, which is currently absent, would be reintroduced were the proposal to proceed. Appeal Decision APP/Z0116/D/18/3201161 2 5. I do not therefore regard the proposal in the same light as the Council. To my mind, the design is perfectly acceptable and the finished product, if built, would sit acceptably and harmoniously within its visual context. 6. I therefore conclude that the proposed extension would not harm the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings. Accordingly, no material clear conflict arises with those provisions of policy BCS21 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy, and policies DM26 & 27 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies, directed, in combination, to promoting high quality urban design and that development should contribute positively to an area’s character and identity. Annexe or dwellinghouse 7. The extension is described as a family annexe. In support, it is said that the annexe would be occupied by the appellant’s daughter, with the intention that she would look after and care for her parents as they grow increasingly older, and dispense medication to her brother. Her occupation of the annexe would enable her to perform these functions whilst maintaining a level of personal independence. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of these intentions. 8. The Council, however, for the reasons set out in the officer report, say that ‘the proposed annex is found to fail to maintain a dependent and ancillary relationship to the existing dwelling at the site.’ It is also considered that a condition imposed to ensure that the annexe would remain ancillary to the main house would prove difficult to enforce. 9. The Council accordingly, treated the proposal as one tantamount to the creation of a new dwellinghouse, and this approach is fully reflected in the composition and content of the second reason for refusal. The Council raise objections to the creation of a separate dwelling here. 10. The facilities provided within the proposed accommodation, which include a bedroom, shower room and a small combined living area/kitchen, are not uncommonly found in residential annexes. The annexe would have a link to the main house at ground floor level, and an existing door, currently serving the garage, would provide access to the road outside. 11. In my view, the judgement in Uttlesford District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and White [1992] is relevant in that it was found that, even if accommodation provides facilities for independent day-to-day living, it would not necessarily become a separate planning unit from the main dwelling, or an independent dwelling; that would be a matter to decide on a factual basis. 12. The Council is concerned that the link from the annexe to the house is internal, and that the door providing the link ‘..could easily be locked or infilled without external knowledge’. I think this prospect unlikely since the door also provides the main link between the house and the integral garage, but in any event, the relationship between the main dwelling and the annexe need not, to my mind, be wholly symbiotic since the occupants of both could reasonably expect a degree of independence. 13. The Council’s concerns as to physical or functional severance could be appropriately addressed by a condition of the type exemplified in the saved annexe to Circular 11/95: The use of conditions in planning permissions. I am Appeal Decision APP/Z0116/D/18/3201161 3 content that this satisfies the relevant tests set out in paragraph 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 14. I conclude that the accommodation proposed displays all the hallmarks of an annexe, and a condition could be imposed to ensure that its ancillary function was retained. Accordingly, I consider that the Council inappropriately treated the proposal as one for the creation of a new dwellinghouse. Conditions 15. I shall impose the condition relating to materials suggested by the Council in the interests of visual amenity. 16. It is necessary, in the interests of certainty, that the development is carried in accordance with the approved plans. 17. In the interests of clarity and certainty, a condition is necessary to limit the occupancy of the accommodation otherwise there is a prospect that the annexe could be used as an independent dwellinghouse. Another condition is imposed to ensure the continuity of the internal link. Other matters 18. I note the references to other development plan policies, but those to which I have referred are considered the most relevant in this case. I have also noted the references to the National Planning Policy Framework. 19. All other matters referred to in the representations have been taken into account, but no other matter raised is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations that led me to my conclusions. G Powys Jones INSPECTOR Schedule of 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: Drawing Nos. PL01; PL02A; PL03 & PL04. 3. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4. The family annexe hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as 6 Woodcote Road. 5. The internal ground floor link door shall be retained in perpetuity as a link between the annexe, hereby permitted, and the host property and shall not be permanently locked or infilled without the Council’s prior written consent.