Erection of a pre-fabricated annexe for ancillary residential use associated with the dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 July 2018 by Paul Cooper MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/18/3201125 250A Deansbrook Road, Edgware HA8 9DQ  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 & Mrs Wewelwala against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet.  The application Ref 17/6980/HSE, dated 2 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 13 March 2018.  The development proposed is erection of a pre-fabricated annexe for ancillary residential use associated with the dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed. Planning permission is granted for the erection of a pre-fabricated annexe for ancillary residential use associated with the dwelling at 250a Deansbrook Road, Edgware HA8 9DQ in accordance with the terms of the application Ref : 17/6980/HSE dated 2 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: Drawing 1672.1 Footprint; Drawing 1672.2 Elevations; Drawing 1672.3 Location Plan; Drawing 1672.4 Existing Block Plan; Drawing 1672.5 Proposed Block Plan. 3) 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 250A Deansbrook Road. 4) Before foundation works are completed, details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Procedural Matter 2. The revised National Planning Policy Framework was published during this appeal and is a consideration I have taken into account. However, I am satisfied that the specific changes to the revised document are not matters of direct relevance to this proposal and therefore it was not necessary for the parties to comment on the relevance to their cases. Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3201125 2 Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and on the living conditions of future occupiers. Reasons Background 4. The Council considers that the proposal is effectively a new independent unit of residential accommodation. However, this is not what has been applied for. Both the application and appeal forms make clear that permission is sought for an ancillary annexe, and the Council’s decision notice refers similarly. 5. The Council has supported its case on the basis that the annexe would not be reliant on the host dwelling for access, and has no internal connection. As such, the Council considers that the proposal would not be incidental or ancillary to the main dwelling. With a bedroom, shower room, living area and kitchenette, the Council contends that the building would have sufficient facilities to potentially be used independently as a separate household. 6. However, the evidence of the appellant is that the proposal would not be used in this way. There is repeated correspondence stating that it would not be used for independent living and that it would be used as temporary accommodation for family members whilst works to the main dwelling are being carried out, and after those works are completed, it would revert to use as a garden room and store. From my interpretation of the plans, the use of the overall site as a whole would remain for single family occupation. The appeal building would not have a separate address, nor separate utility provision, or any private garden area. All these matters point towards ancillary use of the appeal building. The use of the appeal building as an annexe can also be controlled by condition to prevent the creation of a new dwelling should I find that to be appropriate. Character and appearance 7. The policies included on the Council’s Decision Notice are broad policies that relate to the assumption that the appeal building is a new dwelling or a permanent residential annexe. For the reasons indicated, I do not agree with that assessment, but there are some more general matters that are covered in those policies, namely Policy 7.4 of the London Plan, Policy CS5 of the Barnet Local Plan (Core Strategy) (the CS) and Policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (the DMP) which do contain, amongst other matters, broader guidance regarding form and function, character and design and the protection of the amenities of residents. The other policies quoted namely Policies 3.5 and 7.6 of the London Plan and Policy DM02 of the DMP do not have a relevance to the proposed use for the above reasons. 8. The proposed building itself would be functional in terms of design. It would not be of a size or height that look out of context within the area, would not be easily visible within the street scene, and as a result would not cause harm to the domestic character of the locality. As such, I am satisfied that the proposal would be in general accordance with Policy 7.4 of the London Plan, Policy CS5 of the CS and Policy DM01 of the DMP. Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3201125 3 9. The appeal site lies within the Watling Estate Conservation Area. Given the design, form and proposed use of the building, I find that the significance of the Conservation Area would be unharmed. Living Conditions 10. As the proposed building would be ancillary to the main dwelling, I am satisfied that the general relevance of Policy 3.5 of the London Plan and its accompanying standards is limited given that the proposed building would not be a new home. As such, I find little conflict with that Policy, which relates to space standards for new dwellings and little basis from the evidence before me to otherwise question the intended standard of living conditions given the ancillary nature of the accommodation proposed. Other Matters 11. I have noted the objections of local residents at application stage with regard to noise and related issues, but I have little reason to find such an impact arising from the development as proposed and such matters would also be more generally regulated through other, separate legislation. 12. I have also noted the appeal decisions forwarded by both parties in their submissions. Whilst the parties interpret the appeals with regard to their own submissions, I do not have the full details of the cases in question in front of me and I am unable to draw significant direct comparisons. I have determined the appeal on its own merits, based on the evidence in front of me. Conditions 13. The Council has suggested a number of conditions, which I have considered accordingly. I have amended some of the suggested wording of those conditions for the purposes of clarity and legibility. 14. I have imposed a condition in relation to the commencement of development and a condition that the proposal should be constructed in accordance with submitted plans, in the interests of certainty. 15. Condition 3 is imposed to ensure that the annexe remains ancillary to the main dwelling, whilst Condition 4 ensures that the character and appearance of the area is protected. Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed. Paul Cooper INSPECTOR