Erection of a single storey building to form a self-contained granny annexe

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 June 2019 by Chris Couper BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3rd July 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/W5780/D/19/3228662 65 Broadhurst Avenue, Seven Kings, Ilford IG3 9DL • 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 Abid against the decision of the London Borough of Redbridge Council. • The application Ref 0495/19, dated 30 January 2019, was refused by notice dated 29 March 2019. • The development proposed is described as the ‘erection of a single storey building to form a self-contained granny annexe’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey building to form a self-contained granny annexe at 65 Broadhurst Avenue, Seven Kings, Ilford IG3 9DL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 0495/19, dated 30 January 2019, and drawing Nos 350BA 001, 350BA 002, 350BA 003 and 350BA 004, subject to the following condition: 1) 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 65 Broadhurst Avenue. Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr Abid against the London Borough of Redbridge Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision. Procedural Matter 3. The single storey building the subject of this appeal is already in place. At the time of my visit its bedroom, bathroom and lounge/kitchen, as depicted on drawing no. 350BA 003, were largely fitted out. Consequently, whilst it is not clear whether the building has yet been occupied, I have treated the scheme as the retention of the existing development, and I have amended the description accordingly. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character of the property and the area, having regard to the potential for noise and disturbance and the effect on neighbouring properties. Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/19/3228662 2 Reasons 5. Policy LP7 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015 - 2030 (2018) (‘LP’) seeks to resist the use of ancillary outbuildings as separate sleeping and living accommodation. 6. This single storey building is detached from the main house, but is located within its garden, where it abuts the rear boundary and spans the width of the plot. It has a low height, and it is not dissimilar in scale and appearance to other outbuildings in the rear gardens of adjacent and nearby plots. 7. Given its location, its limited height, and boundary treatment, the building is barely visible in the Broadhurst Avenue streetscene. Whilst its flank abuts the adjacent service lane, it is seen in the context of fairly utilitarian structures, including garages. I have no reason to disagree with the Council that, in terms of its scale and appearance, the building is not harmful to neighbouring amenities. 8. The building’s layout includes attributes necessary for independent accommodation, including a bedroom, a kitchen/lounge and a bathroom. However, the appellant states that it is a self-contained granny annexe, which would be occupied by the appellant’s elderly parents, and would therefore provide additional accommodation for the existing dwelling. 9. For my part, I note that the building is modestly proportioned compared to the main house. It shares its outdoor amenity space with the main house, and its single aspect outlook is towards it. There is a side gate leading from the garden to the service lane, but there is no indication that it is, or would be, used solely by the occupants of the annexe. I understand that the rear garden was previously divided by a fence, as illustrated in Figure 1 of the Council’s officer report, but it is not so at present, and the drawings do not depict that. 10. Whilst the Council states that there is no evidence that the occupants of the main dwelling and the outbuilding would function as a single household, conversely, there is limited evidence that they would not. The use of this building as a separate dwelling would require planning permission, and I have no cogent reason to doubt the appellant’s description of a ‘self-contained granny annexe’, which is consistent with that given on the Council’s decision notice. 11. Moreover, the appellant has referred me to Appendix A of Circular 11/95, which provides an example of a model condition to ensure that an extension or outbuilding is used solely as accommodation ancillary to the main dwelling. I am not persuaded by the Council’s stance that such a condition would be unreasonable and unenforceable here. 12. Used as ancillary accommodation, the occupants of the outbuilding would be likely to undertake some joint trips and some shared activities with the occupants of the main house. That use would therefore typically generate a lower intensity of activity, with fewer comings and goings, and significantly less disturbance to neighbouring occupiers, compared to an independent dwelling. Used as such, with the occupants able to make use of facilities in the main house, it would also provide reasonable quality living conditions. 13. I understand that there is a ‘growing issue’ within the borough of outbuildings in self-contained residential use. However, for the above reasons, I am Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/19/3228662 3 satisfied that a condition restricting the use of this building to ancillary accommodation would be reasonable; and that subject to such a restriction, its use would not have an adverse impact on the character of the area, including on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. 14. As the building would remain in ancillary use, there would not be a conflict with the broad approach of LP Policy LP7, which does not address the specific matter of ‘granny annexes’; or with LP Policy LP26 which promotes high quality design which respects local character, and which seeks to avoid an adverse impact on neighbouring occupiers in relation to matters such as noise. 15. Consequently, subject to that condition, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed. Chris Couper INSPECTOR