Proposed conversion & extension to workshop to form annexe

Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 13 March 2019 by I A Dyer BSc (Eng) MIHT an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 April 2019 Appeal A Ref: APP/J3530/W/18/3212166 The Fields, The Street, Dennington, IP13 8JF • 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 Pamment against the decision of Suffolk Coastal District Council. • The application Ref DC/18/0050/FUL, dated 4 January2018, was refused by notice dated 30 April 2018. • The development proposed is described as “proposed dwelling land adjacent to The Fields, The Street, Dennington”. Appeal B Ref: APP/J3530/D/18/3213206 The Fields, The Street, Dennington IP13 8JF • 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 Pamment against the decision of Suffolk Coastal District Council. • The application Ref DC/18/2971/FUL, dated 18 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 27 September 2018. • The development proposed is described as “proposed conversion & extension to workshop to form annexe”. Decision 1. Appeal A is dismissed. 2. Appeal B is dismissed. Procedural Matters 3. As set out above there are two appeals on this site. They differ in that Appeal A is for a new purpose-built dwelling, whilst Appeal B is for conversion and extension of an existing outbuilding to form an annexe to the host dwelling. I have considered each proposal on its individual merits. However, to avoid duplication I have dealt with the two schemes together, except where otherwise indicated. 4. The application that is the subject of Appeal B was made as a Householder Application for works to a dwelling and relates to the conversion and extension of a workshop to form an annexe. I have, therefore, considered the appeal on this basis. 5. Further revisions have been made to the National Planning Policy Framework during the course of my consideration of the appeal and a revised version was Appeal Decisions APP/J3530/W/18/3212166, APP/J3530/D/18/3213206 2 published in February 2019 (the revised Framework). The changes to the Framework do not materially alter the Paragraphs most relevant to this appeal. 6. Since the Local Planning Authority issued their decision Suffolk Coastal District Council and Waveney District Council have merged to form East Suffolk Council. Main Issues 7. The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character of the immediate area. (Appeal A and Appeal B) • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties with particular regard to the potential for additional noise and disturbance (Appeal A and Appeal B): and • whether, or not, the annexe is well-related to the existing dwelling with particular regard to its location and physical separation. (Appeal B only). Reasons Character of the immediate area (Appeal A and Appeal B) 8. The appeal site is located on the edge of the built-up area and there is open countryside beyond. The immediate residential area is predominantly characterised by detached dwellings spread out on spacious plots surrounded by sizeable gardens providing amenity space for the residents. 9. Policy SP15 of the Suffolk Coastal District Local Plan Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (2013) (the Local Plan) seeks to protect distinctive character in villages. Policy DM7 of the Local Plan allows subdivision of plots to form additional dwellings provided that the development would not result in a cramped form of development out of character with the area, would relate well to its surroundings, and make appropriate provision for a reasonably sized plot for both the existing and proposed buildings. 10. Policy DM21 of the Local Plan sets out various criteria for development to ensure good design, requiring that, amongst other things, development must relate well to its surroundings, particularly in terms of siting, height, massing and form and that attention must be paid to the form, scale, use and landscape of the spaces between buildings, drawing particular attention to the edge of settlements. 11. In the case of Appeal A, the proposed dwelling would be located between the rear elevation of The Fields and the southern elevation of Barnsdale, the neighbouring dwelling, requiring the demolition of the existing outbuildings. The development would share a driveway with The Fields and, once this and the parking provision is taken into account, there would be only a relatively small garden for the new dwelling and the rear garden of The Fields would be substantially reduced in size. Whilst the dimensions of these spaces comply with Local Plan policy requirements, the ratio of the size of building footprint to amenity area would be much smaller for the new dwelling and its host property when compared to those of dwellings in the immediate area. Appeal Decisions APP/J3530/W/18/3212166, APP/J3530/D/18/3213206 3 12. By virtue of its size, the building would occupy much of the plot, interposing itself between the existing dwellings. This would produce a cramped form of development, out of character with the surrounding properties because of its juxtaposition to the existing properties, the size of the footprint of the proposed dwelling in relation to the plot boundaries and the modest size of the proposed amenity space. 13. Further, the dwelling would be partially visible across the farmland to the west from the road approaching the village, albeit these views would be screened to a degree by existing planting. The development would replace two existing outbuildings in this view. However, the scale and massing of the new building would be greater than the existing outbuildings combined. The size and height of the dwelling and its position on the edge of the village and between two existing dwellings, would increase the appearance of urbanisation when approaching the village. 14. In the case of Appeal B, the development would enlarge an existing outbuilding associated with The Fields, requiring the demolition of an adjacent outbuilding. Although in the case of Appeal B the proposed annexe would not result in subdivision of the host dwelling’s plot and would be located further south, closer to the host dwelling, the structure itself would still considerably increase the footprint and massing of the existing built form and visually fill the space between The Field and Barnsdale. 15. Again, by virtue of its size, the building would occupy much of the space between The Fields and Barnsdale, interposing itself between the existing dwellings. In a similar way to the Appeal A scheme, this would produce a cramped form of development, out of character with the surrounding form of development because of its size, massing and juxtaposition to the existing properties. 16. Further the annexe would be partially visible across the farmland to the west from the road approaching the village, albeit these views would be screened to a degree by existing planting. The size and height of the annexe and its position on the edge of the village and between two existing dwellings, would increase the appearance of urbanisation when approaching the village. 17. Whilst density and character of development varies throughout the village as a whole, I have considered the effect of the development on the particular character of the immediate vicinity of the development. 18. In regard to Appeal A I conclude that the development would result in unacceptable harm to the character of the immediate area, contrary to Policies SP15, DM7, and DM21 of the Local Plan. In a similar way it would be contrary to the aims of Section 7 of the revised Framework which encourage good quality design. 19. In regard to Appeal B I conclude that the development would result in unacceptable harm to the character of the immediate area, contrary to Policies SP15 and DM21 of the Local Plan. In a similar way it would be contrary to the aims of Section 7 of the revised Framework which encourage good quality design. 20. Although Policy DM 7 of the Local Plan is referred to in the Council’s reasons for refusal for Appeal B, this policy relates to the provision of additional dwellings. Appeal Decisions APP/J3530/W/18/3212166, APP/J3530/D/18/3213206 4 The application before me is for an annexe ancillary to the host dwelling and therefore I do not find that this policy is directly relevant. Living conditions of neighbours (Appeal A and Appeal B) 21. Policy DM23 of the Local Plan seeks to protect the living conditions of occupants of neighbouring properties from various possible impacts of development that could affect the enjoyment of their property, including, amongst other things, noise and disturbance and the physical relationship with other properties. Similarly, Policy DM6 requires that an annexe must not have any significant adverse effect on residential amenity. 22. In the case of Appeal A, the new dwelling would be accessed past the host dwelling and locate its parking, with associated manoeuvring of vehicles close to the garden of The Fields. This would introduce comings and goings, with increased noise and disturbance, which would be out of the control of the occupiers of The Fields. 23. Barnsdale is located close to the fence dividing it from The Fields, and has windows facing that boundary, and areas of garden on its eastern and western sides. 24. Appeal A would have doors on its northern side and an external amenity area on the western side, adjacent to the boundary with Barnsdale, accessed from large patio doors, whilst Appeal B, although placing the building further away from the boundary, would have large patio doors opening on its northern side and this would encourage use of the space between the annexe and the boundary. 25. Both of the proposals would therefore have potential to increase activity closer to Barnsdale than is currently experienced, with potential increased noise and disturbance to the occupiers. 26. In regard to Appeal A I conclude that the development would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties with particular regard to the potential for additional noise and disturbance arising from use of parking areas and amenity space, contrary to Policy DM23 of the Local Plan. In a similar way it would be contrary to the aims of Paragraph 127 (f) of the revised Framework which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. 27. In regard to Appeal B I conclude that the development would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties with particular regard to the potential for additional noise and disturbance arising from use of amenity space, contrary to Policies DM6 and DM23 of the Local Plan. In a similar way it would be contrary to the aims of Paragraph 127 (f) of the revised Framework which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Relationship to main dwelling (Appeal B) 28. Policy DM6 of the Local Plan allows the development of residential annexes ancillary to a dwelling in certain circumstances. In the case of conversion of an outbuilding there is a requirement that it is well-related to the existing dwelling and that there must be no significant adverse effect on residential amenity. Appeal Decisions APP/J3530/W/18/3212166, APP/J3530/D/18/3213206 5 29. Further, the supporting narrative for the policy gives additional explanation of the basis on which the Council will consider the scheme, at paragraph 5.22, requiring that conversions of ancillary buildings be small in scale, well related to the main dwelling and cause no detriment to residential or visual amenity. As identified above there would be harm to the living conditions of Barnsdale. 30. The relationship between the annexe and its host property is determined by more than just it’s physical proximity, although this does, of itself, play a part. The proposed annexe is of considerable size, incorporating all of the facilities usual in and independent dwelling. This is reflected in the design of the building and it resembles in scale and form an independent dwelling and does not appear subservient to the existing dwelling, whilst occupying a position in close proximity to that dwelling, resulting in an awkward and incongruous relationship. 31. I therefore conclude that the annexe is not well-related to the existing dwelling with particular regard to its location and physical separation and is contrary to Policy DM6 of the Local Plan. In a similar way it would be contrary to the aims of Paragraph 127 (f) of the revised Framework. 32. Whilst the annexe would be positioned adjacent to the existing parking area for The Fields, this would be shared between residents of a single household and I do not consider that the relationship to this parking is unacceptable. 33. Policy DM 7 of the Local Plan is referred to in the Council’s reasons for refusal, but, as this policy relates to the provision of additional dwellings and the application before me is for an annexe ancillary to the host dwelling, I do not find that this policy is directly relevant. Other Matters 34. The development considered in Appeal A would make a positive contribution to housing supply in an accessible location within the village where the appellant suggests that there is an acknowledge housing shortfall. There would be associated benefits including support for local services and temporary economic benefits during construction. The appellant suggests that the provision of the proposed dwelling would achieve the efficient use of land by making use of a large garden to provide housing within the settlement boundary. Even were I to agree with the appellant’s allegation of a housing shortfall, those benefits arising from a single dwelling are limited and do not outweigh the harm I have identified. 35. The appellant has referred to other sites in the village where additional infill/backland development has been permitted. However, I have little information relating to the planning history associated with these sites and can, therefore, give little weight to this matter. In any case I have determined the Appeals before me on their individual merits. 36. I note that, in accordance with best practice the appellant, sought pre-application advice from the Council. However, such advice is only informal advice and is not binding upon the Council during the decision making process. I have, therefore, placed little weight on this matter in reaching my decision. 37. In regard to Appeal B, the proposed annexe would be large enough to accommodate facilities such that it could function as an independent property. This, of itself, would not be contrary to the policy, and could be governed by a Appeal Decisions APP/J3530/W/18/3212166, APP/J3530/D/18/3213206 6 planning condition restricting use as a separate residential dwelling. However, in reaching my conclusion I have considered Policy DM6 as a whole and it’s supporting text. 38. I am aware that several representations in support of the development considered under Appeal A were made relating to the need for housing, including the specific needs of the appellant’s family and the support that the development would provide for local services. However, these benefits do not outweigh the harm which I have identified in regard to the main issues. Conclusion 39. For the reasons given above the appeals are dismissed. I Dyer INSPECTOR