Extension and Conversion of existing double garage to form live-in carer’s accommodation including associated hard paving
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Character & Appearance
Rural Impact
Open Space
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 10 October 2023
by Andrew Dale BA (Hons) MA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 26 October 2023
Appeal Ref. APP/L3245/D/23/3327008
West Lodge, Adcote, Little Ness, Shrewsbury SY4 2JU
• 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 M Warner against the decision of Shropshire Council.
• The application ref. 23/01843/FUL, dated 27 April 2023, was refused by notice dated
29 June 2023.
• The development proposed is “Extension and Conversion of existing double garage to
form live-in carer’s accommodation including associated hard paving”.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Extension and
Conversion of existing double garage to form live-in carer’s accommodation
including associated hard paving at West Lodge, Adcote, Little Ness,
Shrewsbury SY4 2JX in accordance with the terms of the application ref.
23/01843/FUL, dated 27 April 2023, subject to the conditions contained in the
Schedule at the end of this Appeal Decision.
Preliminary matters
2. In the heading and decision above, I have taken the postcode for the site from
the planning appeal statement submitted on behalf of the appellants. I believe
this to be the correct postcode.
3. An application for a full award of costs has been made by Mr & Mrs M Warner
against Shropshire Council. This application will be the subject of a separate
decision.
Main issue
4. The main issue is whether the proposed accommodation may be considered as
a residential annexe ancillary to the use of the host dwelling, or whether a
separate dwelling would be created and allied to that matter, whether there
would be overdevelopment affecting the character and appearance of the
original dwelling, the site and the surroundings.
Reasons
5. West Lodge is a distinguished stone-fronted 2-storey house which has been
extended since its original construction. It stands near the centre of a large plot
at the junction of the classified road with a minor lane. There is only sporadic
Appeal Decision APP/L3245/D/23/3327008
2
development in the near vicinity. The surroundings and setting of the site are
resolutely rural in character. The proposal concerns a characterful detached
single-storey building in the garden between the house and the classified road.
It contains a double garage set an angle and a washing/utility room at the rear.
6. The appellants wish to extend and convert that detached building to provide a
2-bedroom residential unit with their future care and living arrangements very
much uppermost in their minds. I have read the letter from Mr Warner’s doctor
which lists his medical conditions and age. Having regard to this information, it
seems reasonable that the appellants should plan for and anticipate their future
health needs. They are clearly in the best position to do so, including the timing
and nature of any care options. The occupiers of the unit would be a live-in
carer (and any dependants) or the appellants themselves, if ground floor
accommodation becomes a pressing requirement. The intended occupation of
the extended building is therefore as a residential annexe.
7. I have not been made aware of any development plan policies which
specifically cover the creation of residential annexes whether that be through
extensions to existing dwellings, the erection of new detached buildings or the
extension and conversion of existing buildings in a domestic garden as
proposed here. The Council said that in general annexe accommodation could
be supported in principle at the site but came to the view that the proposal
would effectively amount to an open market dwelling, separate from the main
house, in the open countryside. It is important that I consider the proposal as
applied for in the first instance. There is no separate dwelling before me. The
application was registered, validated and advertised as a proposal to form live-
in carer’s accommodation in accordance with the description of the proposal on
the application form. The red edge of the application site surrounds the whole
residential curtilage of West Lodge.
8. Even though the outbuilding as extended, looked at in isolation, would be a
substantial structure in its own right, being akin to a bungalow in terms of the
internal floor area, it would not physically challenge the dominance of the main
2-storey dwelling in terms of its overall size, scale, bulk, height and massing
and would not appear to overdevelop the site when taking in the generous
proportions of the garden areas that would remain on all sides of the main
dwelling. The detailed design has been carefully thought through to reflect the
high-quality features and materials of the existing building including the use of
matching timber cladding and steeply hipped roofs of matching clay tiles.
9. The extension’s roof would be marginally lower than the existing garage roof.
The Council’s reference to a ridge height “of approximately 8m” was incorrect
but I doubt if this was ever carried into the assessment of visual impact (6.3.1
of the officer’s report) because reference is only made there to the
development resulting in “some visual impact”. A height of 8 m equates to the
height of a tall 2-storey house so a building that high would have had a notable
and damaging visual impact on the area’s rural character and appearance.
Such an objection would likely to have been front and centre of the Council’s
decision notice but the matter of height is not directly referred to therein.
10. As it is, I consider that reasonable observers are likely to associate the
resulting structure with a well-designed ancillary outbuilding. With the
substantial boundary hedges (mainly of holly) retained, the single-storey
Appeal Decision APP/L3245/D/23/3327008
3
development would have only a limited visual impact on the 2 local rural street
scenes. I consider that the development would be designed in a manner that
would reinforce local distinctiveness. On balance, I am satisfied that
overdevelopment adversely affecting the character and appearance of the
original dwelling, the site and the surroundings would not arise.
11. Whilst the annexe would offer the facilities required for independent day-to-day
living and would not require access through West Lodge itself, it would not
necessarily become a separate planning unit from the main dwelling. That any
occupiers would experience a degree of independence is not untypical of
annexes. This and the building’s internal floor area would not in themselves
undermine its ancillary purpose.
12. As a matter of fact and degree, the accommodation would plainly be capable of
being occupied as an annexe, taking into account the following: the intended
occupiers would be a live-in carer (and any dependants) employed by the
family, who are likely to share various living activities with the family in the
main dwelling, or the appellants themselves, if ground floor accommodation
becomes a pressing requirement, whilst close family members move into the
main dwelling; the internal floor space provided would not obviously exceed
those stated needs and would be smaller than the floor space of the main
dwelling; no subdivision of the plot is proposed; the whole site of West Lodge
would remain owned by the appellants with no suggestion of there being
separate titles, bills or postal addresses or any letting to tenants; the annexe
would be closely related to the main house and a reasonable proportion of the
windows to habitable rooms would be found in its south-east elevation looking
directly towards the main dwelling and its parking and garden areas; the
access, parking and garden areas would be and are clearly capable of being
shared; and an existing utility/washing room would remain in the outbuilding
and be available for the occupiers of the annexe and the main house.
13. Whilst there are some inevitable similarities with the Council’s decisions and
the appeal decisions presented with the appellants’ planning appeal statement
in terms of the intended occupation as an annexe, those decisions were not
dealing with identical proposals, plans, sites or contexts. I have sought to
assess the appeal before me on its own merits.
14. I am aware that the development is likely to remain in place long after the
need which gave rise to the application has gone. I have noted the wording in
the draft Unilateral Undertaking (dUU) which seeks to address the future
occupancy and potential disposal of the annexe outbuilding. However, it would
be possible through the imposition of a planning condition to ensure the
outbuilding is not occupied or used at any time other than for purposes
ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known West Lodge or sold
separately from the remainder of the application site. This will reflect the
purposes stated by the appellants and the wording in the dUU, whilst the
outbuilding’s use for other purposes might well raise wholly different
considerations which could well be unacceptable in planning terms in this
countryside location.
15. With such a condition imposed, I find on the main issue that the proposed
accommodation may be considered as a residential annexe ancillary to the use
of the host dwelling and would not amount to overdevelopment adversely
Appeal Decision APP/L3245/D/23/3327008
4
affecting the character and appearance of the original dwelling, the site and the
surroundings. The scheme would not give rise to any material harm. It would
accord with Policies CS5, CS6 and CS17 of the Shropshire Local Development
Framework Adopted Core Strategy and Policies MD2 and MD7a of the Site
Allocations and Management of Development Plan which, when read together,
seek to restrict new dwellings in the countryside and ensure development is
designed to a high quality and contributes to and respects locally distinctive or
valued character and existing amenity value. I also find no conflict with the
Type and Affordability of Housing Supplementary Planning Document or the
National Planning Policy Framework.
Conditions
16. In addition to a condition setting a time limit for the commencement of
development, a condition requiring that the development is carried out in
accordance with the relevant approved drawings is necessary as this provides
certainty. I have also imposed a condition regarding the use of the building for
the reasons I gave in paragraph 14 above.
17. I have imposed a condition relating to external materials to safeguard the
character and appearance of the building and the locality. The Council gave 2
options on this matter. In the Questionnaire the use of matching materials was
recommended, whilst in the separate list of conditions provided there was a
preference for samples or details of the materials to be submitted for approval.
It is quite sufficient for the former option to be followed.
18. Having regard to the rural surroundings of the site, the interests of biodiversity
and the observations of the Council’s Planning Ecologist and the ecological
appraisal by Arbor Vitae commissioned by the appellants, I have imposed
conditions to ensure the provision of roosting opportunities for bats and nesting
opportunities for birds and to control external lighting on the site.
Conclusion
19. My findings on the main issue are decisive to the outcome of this appeal. For
the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised and the
lack of objections from local residents, members and organisations, I have
concluded that this appeal should succeed.
Andrew Dale
INSPECTOR
Schedule of Planning Conditions
Appeal Decision APP/L3245/D/23/3327008
5
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from
the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved plans: Location Plan; Block Site Plan (drawing no.
397/51D); Garage Elevations as Existing (drawing no. 08/35); Annex Floor
Plan New Garage Plan (drawing no. 397/52D); Elevations 1 (drawing no.
397/53B); and Elevations 2 (drawing no. 397/54B).
3) The self-contained annexe hereby permitted shall not be occupied or used at
any time other than for purposes in connection with and ancillary to the
enjoyment of the existing single dwelling on the site known as West Lodge
and at no time shall it be occupied as a separate dwelling, sold separately
from the remainder of the application site, which shall be retained as one
whole, or used for commercial or business purposes beyond a level that is
incidental to the primary residential use.
4) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the
development hereby permitted shall match those of the double garage.
5) Prior to first occupation/use of the annexe building hereby permitted, details
of the makes, models and locations of bat and bird boxes shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details to be
submitted shall provide for the following boxes to be erected on the site and
include a timetable for their implementation:
- a minimum of 1 external woodcrete bat box or integrated bat bricks,
suitable for nursery or summer roosting for small crevice-dwelling bat
species;
- a minimum of 1 artificial nest, of either integrated brick design or external
box design, suitable for starlings (42 mm hole, starling-specific) or sparrows
(32 mm hole, terrace design).
The boxes shall be sited in suitable locations, with a clear flight path and
where they will be unaffected by artificial lighting.
The boxes shall be erected strictly in accordance with the approved details
and timetable and shall thereafter be maintained for the lifetime of the
development.
6) Prior to the erection of any external lighting on the site, a lighting plan shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
lighting plan shall demonstrate that the proposed lighting will not impact
upon ecological networks and/or sensitive features, e.g. bat and bird boxes.
The submitted scheme shall be designed to take into account the advice on
lighting set out in Guidance Note 08/18 Bats and artificial lighting in the UK
produced by the Bat Conservation Trust and the Institution of Lighting
Professionals. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance
with the approved details and thereafter retained for the lifetime of the
development.
End of Schedule
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 10 October 2023
by Andrew Dale BA (Hons) MA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 26 October 2023
Costs application in relation to appeal ref. APP/L3245/D/23/3327008
West Lodge, Adcote, Little Ness, Shrewsbury SY4 2JU
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Mr & Mrs M Warner for a full award of costs against
Shropshire Council.
• The appeal was made against the refusal of planning permission for “Extension and
Conversion of existing double garage to form live-in carer’s accommodation including
associated hard paving”.
Costs decision
1. The application for a full award of costs is refused.
Reasons for the costs decision
2. The Government’s Planning Practice Guidance (the Guidance) advises that all
parties in appeals are expected to behave reasonably to support an efficient
and timely process and that where a party has behaved unreasonably, and this
has directly caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in
the appeal process, they may be subject to an award of costs.
3. This application for costs has been considered on its merits in the light of the
costs advice found within the Guidance, the appeal papers, the costs
correspondence and all the relevant circumstances relating to the planning
application and the appeal. The parties are also referred to my appeal decision.
4. The costs application seeks a substantive award against the local planning
authority. The substantive case made includes some of the topics that appear
in paragraph 049 of the Guidance in the main section headed Behaviour that
may lead to an award of costs against appeal parties.
5. The applicants submit that the Council has behaved unreasonably by: (a)
preventing or delaying development which should clearly be permitted, having
regard to its accordance with the development plan, national policy and any
other material considerations; (b) vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions
about a proposal’s impact, which are unsupported by any objective analysis;
(c) failure to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal on
appeal; (d) not working proactively during the application’s consideration; (e)
refusing planning permission on a planning ground capable of being dealt with
by conditions risks an award of costs, where it is concluded that suitable
conditions would enable the proposed development to go ahead; (f) acting
contrary to, or not following, well-established case law and established appeal
decisions; (g) not determining similar cases in a consistent manner;
Costs Decision APP/L3245/D/23/3327008
2
(h) incorrect dimensions stated in the officer’s report upon which the
recommendation was based; and (i) the Council’s incorrect assertion regarding
as to when someone should submit an application regarding their specific
health conditions at a particular time.
6. Central to the appeal case was the ancillary nature of the accommodation
proposed and in particular whether the Council had been reasonable in treating
the development as being tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling, even
though the submitted householder application form made it clear that the
scheme was for an annexe and a planning condition could be imposed to
restrict the future use of the building. Whilst well-established case law was not
put before me, I was referred to other decisions made by the Council and other
appeal decisions.
7. The Council had to be satisfied that if the building was to be restricted, it would
need to be of a reasonable size, scale and design for the ancillary use in
question. This required a planning judgement to be made on a site specific
basis, as had happened with the other cases referred to, particularly bearing in
mind the apparent absence of any development plan policies which specifically
cover the creation of residential annexes. Even though, as a matter of fact and
degree and on balance, I reached a different view to the Council on this key
matter, it was not unreasonable for the Council to consider that the building as
extended would be too large to be an annexe and I consider that the officer’s
report substantiated its position adequately.
8. All in all, I was satisfied that overdevelopment adversely affecting the character
and appearance of the original dwelling, the site and the surroundings would
not arise. It is well established that the resolution of such issues involves a
matter of judgement. Having found that the scheme was tantamount to a new
dwelling, the Council was entitled to find that the increase in floor area would
amount to overdevelopment. Although I did not agree with the Council,
sufficiently robust evidence was put forward in the decision notice and the
officer’s report to show that the Council did not apply its judgement in an
erratic or unreasonable manner.
9. In general terms, the Council’s reason for refusing planning permission did not
lack logic, substance or objectivity. It was supported by relevant development
plan policies. The accusation that the Council did not work proactively during
the application’s consideration is misplaced. Pre-application advice was given
before the refusal of an earlier application and insofar as I can tell, the Council
did not totally disregard the further justification and the appellants’ personal
circumstances that accompanied the appeal application. The Council simply
afforded these factors more limited weight in the overall planning judgement.
10. Thus, the applicants have not clearly demonstrated unreasonable behaviour in
respect of points (a) to (g) inclusive as set out in paragraph 5 above.
11. With regard to (h), the Council may well have erred with its reference to a
ridge height “of approximately 8m”. However, I covered this matter in detail in
paragraph 9 of my appeal decision. As I concluded there, I do not believe this
incorrect measurement was ever seriously considered in the main reasoning for
the decision. Turning lastly to (i), it seemed reasonable to me that the
applicants should plan for and anticipate their future health needs. They are
clearly in the best position to do so, including the timing and nature of any care
options. That does not mean the Council was wrong to point out that the
Costs Decision APP/L3245/D/23/3327008
3
potential level of care that one day may be needed is not required currently or
to favour adaptations to the existing dwelling and/or to the existing garage
building to achieve a more modest annexe.
12. Thus, the applicants have not clearly demonstrated unreasonable behaviour in
respect of points (h) and (i) as set out in paragraph 5 above.
13. The Council’s approach to the available facts did not fully match any of the
types of behaviour listed in the Guidance that may give rise to a substantive
award against a local planning authority.
14. This application for costs falls short of demonstrating that unreasonable
behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the
Guidance, has occurred. An award of costs is not therefore justified.
Andrew Dale
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.