Garden annexe. The outbuilding is ancillary to the main dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 May 2026 by S Jamieson BA(Hons) MPlan MRTPI Decision by L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4th August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008150 34 Randolph Road, Bromley BR2 8PU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Sadler against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley. • The application Ref is 25/05696/HPA. • The development proposed is a garden annexe. The outbuilding is ancillary to the main dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a garden annexe at 34 Randolph Road, Bromley BR2 8PU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/05696/HPA, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings: Location Map (Scale 1:1250@4); Proposed Site Plan (Scale 1:500@a4); and Proposed Elevations (Scale 1:100@a3 date 31.10.2025). 3) No development shall take place other than demolition of the existing wall within the garden, and no machinery or materials shall be brought onto site, until an Arboricultural Method Statement, details of mitigation measures, foundation design, service runs and tree protection measures during site preparation and construction have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby approved shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4) Any air conditioning unit or equipment that is installed within or externally to the annexe hereby permitted, or to serve that annexe shall be installed in accordance with the noise mitigation measures provided in the submitted Noise Mitigation Statement and Low Sound Enclosure EKLN140A Daikin manufacturers document. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Appeal Decision 6008150 2 Preliminary Matter 3. In the Decision above I have removed wording from the description that does not describe the act of development. Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the appeal site is an appropriate location for the proposed development, having regard to its effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal property is a detached dwelling occupying a generous plot. It is proposed that the garden annexe would accommodate a member of the appellants’ family. Policy 7 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (2019) (LP) sets out that where extensions are proposed for family members, that they will be permitted where all of the three criteria of the policy are met. The proposal is not for an extension however, it is for a detached outbuilding. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that the provisions of Policy 7 are directly relevant to this proposal, and it has not been determinative in my assessment. 6. The proposed annexe would contain an open‑plan kitchen, dining and lounge area, one bedroom, a study and a bathroom. As such, it would contain the facilities necessary for independent living. However, the plans show that the annexe would share the same garden as the host dwelling, with no subdivision of the plot proposed. 7. The annexe would be considerably smaller than the host dwelling and relatively close to it. It would provide very modest accommodation. The evidence also shows that parking, access, utilities and postal address would be shared. Its close physical relationship with the host, together with the shared access, services and curtilage, would reinforce the functional and visual connection between the two buildings. 8. Although there is an existing garden gate serving the property, it is positioned at the far end of the garden, away from the proposed annexe and adjacent to the house. The annexe is also sited away from the road, with no realistic means of providing an alternative point of access other than that shared with the dwelling. Consequently, notwithstanding the siting of the annex, there would be a clear physical and functional dependency between the two buildings. Consequently, I consider that the development would be used in a way that is part and parcel of the existing dwellinghouse use. 9. Even if the development could potentially be used as a separate dwelling, the description of the development makes clear this is not what has been applied for. If the annexe is not built or used as proposed, or if there is a material change of use in the future to create a separate dwelling, then a separate grant of planning permission would be required, and the building would be at risk of enforcement action if such permission is not granted. 10. Although the annexe would differ in design from the existing dwelling, its domestic design, single-storey scale and smaller footprint than the main dwelling would ensure that it would appear subservient to its host. There would be very limited visibility of the building from neighbours or public views. Therefore, the building itself would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Given that the Appeal Decision 6008150 3 proposal is for it to be used as an annexe, not a separate dwelling, it would not be out of keeping with the pattern of development in the area, where outbuildings in gardens are common. 11. There are mature trees across the site which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order. Given their size, visibility and coverage, these trees make a significant positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal has the potential to damage the trees directly or indirection during construction, including from the foundations, service runs and the storage and movement of materials and machinery. Damage to the trees resulting in their loss or harming their long-term health would harm the character and appearance of the area. These impacts could however be managed and suitably mitigated through planning a condition to secure appropriate working methods and tree protection measures. 12. For these reasons, and subject to conditions, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area, and I therefore find the appeal site is an appropriate location for the proposed development. It would accord with LP Policy 37 which requires all development proposals to be of a high standard of design and layout. Other Matters 13. I note the concerns raised regarding the potential loss of outlook from 33 Randolph Road. No 33 is a detached dwelling, set within a spacious plot, containing a number of mature trees and established planting. The proposal would protrude above the shared boundary and would therefore be partly visible from No 33. Nevertheless, due to its single-storey height and set-back position, it would represent only a modest addition to this boundary. While the proposal would inevitably alter the outlook currently experienced from parts of No 33, it would not appear unduly dominant or overbearing and a suitably open outlook would be retained in other directions. 14. Having regard to the scale and positioning of the annexe, the size of the neighbouring plot and the surrounding mature landscaping, there is also no substantive evidence before me to indicate that the proposal would significantly reduce the level of sunlight or daylight received by No 33, even when the trees are in leaf. I therefore find that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of these neighbouring occupiers. 15. I note that a Lawful Development Certificate (Ref 25/05698/LDC) was issued by the Council concerning the siting of a caravan within the rear garden of the appeal site. I do not have the full details of that application before me. In any event, my assessment is based upon the requirement for planning permission, which has been duly applied for and which I have considered on its own planning merits. This is a quite different process to the issuing of a Certificate, which is based on a technical assessment of whether a proposal is development requiring planning permission. 16. It is beyond the scope of this appeal to consider civil matters such as covenants. The grant of planning permission does not absolve the appellant of obtaining any other consents that may be necessary to carry out their development. Appeal Decision 6008150 4 Conditions 17. I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions in light of the advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to time limit and approved plans conditions, both of which are necessary and reasonable in the interests of certainty and good planning, a condition ensuring any air conditioning equipment is installed in accordance with the submitted information is necessary in the interest of safeguarding the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in respect of noise. 18. As set out above, a condition is necessary to safeguard the protected trees on site. However, I have altered the Council’s suggested wording to ensure that all possible impacts are captured, not just those of the foundations of the building, and to ensure the condition is precise and enforceable. Moreover, it does not need to be a pre-commencement condition, as demolition of the existing wall in the garden could take place before the mitigation details and measures need to be in place. 19. The description of the proposal and the way in which it is to be used demonstrate that the annexe would be used as part and parcel of the dwellinghouse. Therefore, a condition to ensure occupation and use as ancillary to that of the main dwelling would be incorrect, and a condition limiting the use to that proposed is not necessary. Conclusion and Recommendation 20. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed. S Jamieson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 21. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions listed above. L McKay INSPECTOR