Extensions/alterations to an existing single storey garden room for the sole use of members of the owners of the host house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 April 2019 by Ann Skippers BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/W5780/D/19/3223602 17 Tudor Close, Woodford Green, Essex IG8 0LF • 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. Charles Stavri against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge. • The application Ref 3490/18, dated 16 August 2018, was refused by notice dated 4 February 2019. • The development proposed is “extensions/alterations to an existing single storey garden room for the sole use of members of the owners of the host house”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for extensions/alterations to an existing single storey garden room for the sole use of members of the owners of the host house at 17 Tudor Close, Woodford Green, Essex IG8 0LF, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3490/18, dated 16 August 2018, 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 numbers 17-1C-01,17-1C-02 and 17- 1C-03. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building. 4) The building hereby permitted shall only be occupied and used as ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling known as 17 Tudor Close at any time. The building shall at no time be subdivided from the curtilage of, or used as an independent unit of residential accommodation separate from, 17 Tudor Close. Main Issue 2. The main issue is whether the proposal would constitute a separate unit of residential accommodation, rather than an ancillary use and, if the former, whether such development would be acceptable. Reasons 3. The Council’s concern relates to an inappropriate back garden development in the form of an independent dwelling. No other harm is identified in respect of Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/19/3223602 2 other issues such as the living conditions of neighbours, highway safety and so on. 4. No 17 is a large detached dwelling situated at the head of this cul-de-sac. It has a large garden. 5. The existing detached outbuilding is substantial and contains a separate WC. The extension would result in a building with two bedrooms, a shower room and a lounge/dining/kitchen area. There is little doubt that the extended building has the potential to be used independently from the main house in terms of the accommodation it would provide. Therefore there is the potential for it to be occupied as a separate dwelling house. 6. However, whilst the accommodation does provide facilities for independent day to day living, this does not necessarily mean that it would become a separate planning unit. It may also be used as an annex. It is a matter of fact and degree as to whether or not the proposed development would be occupied as an annex or as a separate unit. 7. In this case, the information submitted by the appellant indicates the extended building is intended for use by family members. It is intended that the parents-in-law of the appellant would take some meals in the house and that the appellant and his wife would care for the couple and provide laundry and cleaning. Its intended use would therefore be ancillary to the main dwelling. 8. The building is accessed via a narrow pedestrian access to the side of the main property. There is no separate vehicular access or opportunity to provide this and so vehicular access would be shared. The pedestrian access would also be over the frontage and parking area of No 17. Parking would be shared with the main dwelling. It is close to the rear of the main dwelling and this proximity to the main house’s lounge windows gives some potential for mutual overlooking. It is situated within the rear garden area and would share the garden area. Indeed windows from the building would overlook the garden. The enlarged building would be considerably smaller than the main dwelling. 9. Based on these factors, I consider the proposed accommodation could be used as a separate dwelling, but is more likely to be used as an annex. 10. There is no intention to create separate curtilages or subdivide the site. To do so would be difficult, contrived and result in a reduction in amenities for the occupiers of the main house. Occupation as a separate unit would be an unacceptable form of development. However, I am satisfied that a planning condition requiring ancillary occupation would prevent this harm from occurring. Such a condition is therefore necessary and reasonable in the interests of residential amenity and to safeguard the character of the area. 11. Policy LP7 of the Redbridge Local Plan (LP), adopted in March 2018, seeks to resist the use of outbuildings usually used for ancillary purposes within a garden as separate sleeping and living accommodation. In this particular case, given the conclusion I have reached above about the enlarged building’s proposed use, the proposal would not conflict with the objectives of LP Policy LP7 with such a condition imposed. 12. In reaching this conclusion, I have also borne in mind that the proposal is for a relatively minor enlargement of an existing large outbuilding. In addition, the proposal would not affect the contribution the garden makes to the character of Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/19/3223602 3 the area or to the quality of the external environment or amenity provided by it to the occupiers of No 17. Other Matters 13. The site falls within the Woodford Broadway Conservation Area (CA). The proposed extension to the existing outbuilding would reflect the design of both the outbuilding and the host dwelling. Given the character of Tudor Close, I consider the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. In reaching this conclusion, I note that the Council considers the proposal to be of good design and that it would preserve the character of the CA. 14. Two trees, subject of a Tree Preservation Order, are sited to the west. I note the Council does not make any reference to these trees (other than noting them) and they do not form a reason for refusal. The effect on the trees would be acceptable and it is not necessary for me to consider this matter further. Conditions 15. As well as the condition requiring ancillary occupation, I also impose a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty and one specifying materials as this is necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area given the site’s location in a CA. Conclusion 16. On the main issue, I conclude that the proposal is more likely to be used as an annex, but nevertheless could be occupied as a separate unit of accommodation, but the harm that would arise from the latter can be satisfactorily prevented by the imposition of a condition. With such a condition, independent occupation could not lawfully occur. Therefore there is no conflict with the aims of LP Policy LP7 based on the merits of this particular proposal. 17. Accordingly for the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal should be allowed. Ann Skippers INSPECTOR