Erection of an ancillary granny annexe

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 July 2018 by Megan Thomas Barrister-at-Law an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Decision date: 19 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W0530/D/18/3201602 64 Whitecroft Road, Meldreth SG8 6LR  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 Mrs and Mr Kellie and Daniel Burtenshaw and Payne against the decision of South Cambridgeshire District Council.  The application Ref S/0510/18/FL, dated 5 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 9 April 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of an ancillary granny annexe. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is a two storey semi-detached dwelling in the village of Meldreth. It has off-road parking and there is a layby in front of the house. It has front and rear garden areas. The rear garden backs onto the sides and rears of other rear gardens in the area. 4. The proposal is to construct a single storey residential annexe in the rear garden. It would have a footprint of about 66sqm. It would have a width of about 10.5m and length of about 10m and a ridge height of about 4.5m and be about 3m to eaves. It would have a hipped pitched roof. 5. The footprint of the main dwelling is about 66sqm according to the Council. Therefore, the two buildings would be similar in footprint. 6. The appellants highlight the fact that the dwellinghouse has class E permitted development rights which include the provision of outbuildings. I acknowledge that there is a more than theoretical prospect that a large outbuilding could be erected in the rear garden. The footprint of it could be up to 50% of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. In this case, the appellants estimate 50% to be about 147sqm. However, that does not necessarily translate to an outbuilding of that size in this particular rear garden. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that an outbuilding erected using class E rights in the rear garden could be large. Appeal Decision APP/W0530/D/18/3201602 2 7. There are, however, other restrictions on an outbuilding built under class E rights and these include the height of the building not exceeding 4 metres in the case of a building with a dual-pitched roof, 2.5 metres in the case of a building within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, or 3 metres in any other case. Also, the height of the eaves of the building must not exceed 2.5 metres. The appellants have not provided a drawing of a potential fallback scheme. However, taking into account all class E restrictions I judge that a fallback scheme would cause less harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area than the appeal scheme. 8. Given the size of the proposal and its roof form, it would compete with the main dwellinghouse and would have the appearance of a separate dwelling rather than an annexe. I do not consider it would appear subservient to the main house. That being the case, whilst accepting that it could be conditioned to be used only as ancillary residential accommodation, it would interfere with the strong linear pattern of development in this part of Meldreth. Annexes or outbuildings of the size proposed do not appear to me to be typical of the established pattern of development in this area. 9. I have borne in mind the personal circumstances of the appellants. They would like to pass the main dwelling onto their daughter who requires additional living space for her family but is unable to afford rented accommodation within the local area. The appellants would occupy the annexe and they would provide support for the young family and obtain help when they are elderly. However, the proposal would be permanent built development and I do not consider that the personal circumstances outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area in this particular case. 10. Factors such as the likely lack of visibility of the annexe from the public realm and the lack of identified harm to neighbours’ amenity do not outweigh the harm that I have identified above. I conclude, therefore, that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would be contrary to policies DP/2 and DP/3 of the South Cambridgeshire District Council LDF Development Control Policies DPD (2007). 11. Having taken into account all representations made including the detail of other planning decisions for annexes in the area, for the reasons given above, I dismiss the appeal. Megan Thomas INSPECTOR