Replacement of previous garage with new annex above

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 July 2026 by K Winnard LL.B Hons Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011046 Fernbank Cottages, 69 Longton Road, Barlaston, Stoke on Trent. Staffordshire ST12 9AU • 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 Laura Sherrat against the decision of Stafford Borough Council. • The application Ref is 26/41654/ANX • The development proposed is the replacement of previous garage with new annex above. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. Reference is made to amended plans in relation to garage sizes and a reduced height of the building. I note that the Council did not invite these plans and these are not before me in any event. I shall accordingly make my decision on the basis of the plans considered by the Council. 3. The first reason for refusal detailed on the decision notice states that the proposed development cannot be considered to be householder development, However the Council validated the application on this basis, considered its planning merits and issued its decision. I have accordingly determined it on this basis in my decision below. Main Issue 4. The main issue in the appeal is (i) whether the proposed building amounts to ancillary residential accommodation (ii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area and (iii) the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties, Nos 67 and 71 Longton Road by way of loss of privacy. Reasons Ancillary Accommodation 5. The appeal property (No 69) is a semi-detached dwelling with a modest rear garden in a row of properties located in a residential area. Located to the rear of the row of properties is a narrow access road leading to a single storey garage sited at the rear of the garden of No 69. It is proposed to demolish the existing single storey garage and replace with a two storey building accommodating two garages and office/garden room and living accommodation above. It is intended that the proposed annex would be used for inter-generational living but no further details in Appeal Decision 6011046 2 this regard are given. The Council has concluded that the proposal constitutes a new independent unit of residential development. 6. Notwithstanding the proposed ancillary use, it would nonetheless be of substantial size, and the Council’s concerns regarding it being occupied independently are understandable. However, even if the accommodation provides facilities for independent day-to-day living, it would not necessarily become a separate planning unit. It is a matter of fact and degree in each case. 7. Limited details of the internal layout of the annex are given; however, it would be of a size and scale capable of providing self-contained living accommodation and independent living would be possible without requiring access to the main house. By virtue of its scale and siting, it would not appear subservient to its host dwelling and the division of the overall curtilage into two distinct plots would also be easy to achieve. There is also no information before me to demonstrate the ancillary and functional use of the proposal in regard to the host dwelling, nor have I been presented with any information as to how the host dwelling at No 69 is configured. However, whilst access could be obtained independently from the main dwelling, the front elevation of the garage/annexe and bifold opening doors serving the office/garden room would face the small rear garden of No 69 with which it would be shared. Given its siting, layout and the resultant size of the garden, a reasonable degree of privacy for the occupiers of both No 69 and the annexe would not be afforded. Such sharing arrangements would therefore be unlikely to be satisfactory for the residents of No 69 if there was no familial connection between them and the occupants of the annex. 8. On this basis I am satisfied that there would be a functional relationship between No 69 and the annex. I acknowledge the Council’s concern that the building could be used as a separate dwelling, but that is not the proposal before me. If the annex building 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 were not granted. Moreover, the use and occupancy of the building could be controlled by a suitably worded planning condition, which would ensure the use of the annex would be ancillary to the main dwelling, or in the event of different ownership of part of the appeal site as referred to, a planning obligation so that there is in addition to the required ancillary use of the annex a further level of control to prevent the creation of a separate dwelling. 9. In any case I must determine the case on the planning merits and as applied for, namely a garage with annex above and on the basis of the information before me I conclude that the building would be capable of amounting to ancillary accommodation. It is therefore appropriate to assess the scheme on the basis of the reasons for refusal given by the Council in relation to design and privacy concerns. Character and Appearance 10. The proposed garage/annex would occupy almost the full width of the rear garden at No 69 and would extend significantly into its rear garden. By virtue of its width and height it would appear disproportionately large and oversized relative to the host dwelling and plot. As a result, it would appear as a cramped form of Appeal Decision 6011046 3 development unduly prominent in the area and would substantially diminish the semi-rural character and appearance of the site and area. 11. The appellant refers me to an extant permission for a detached two storey garage but only a reference to the difference in dimensions is before me. Be that as it may, even on these dimensions such a garage would be smaller in length and height to the scheme before me. It would therefore have a less visual impact than the proposal. Reference is also made to the proposal enabling the clearance of the site however the clearance of land that is untidy would not represent justification to allow a building in a location that would otherwise be unacceptable. 12. Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area, contrary to Policy N1e, N1g and N1h of the Plan for Stafford Borough (2011-2031) (LP). These policies seek to ensure a high standard of design taking into account the amenity of adjacent residential areas, and the local character and context. Living Conditions 13. Nos 67 and 71 Longton Road adjoin the appeal site separated by close boarded fences. The garage/annex would have first floor windows facing towards the rear garden of No 69. Whilst therefore not directly facing the windows of the neighbouring properties, Nos 67 and 71, due to its height and the separation distances involved, the garage/annex would afford its users a more open and elevated view over the neighbouring properties and rear gardens. Whilst in the case of No 71 this would be screened to some extent by existing boundary treatment this would not be the case in relation to the potential for overlooking into the rear garden area of No 67. Given the separation distances between the garage/annex and the neighbouring properties, the elevated views would mean that an acceptable level of privacy would be compromised. I accept that the obscure glazing, in the rear elevation of the new dwelling to the north of the appeal site, would mean any overlooking from the rear elevation of the proposed garage/annex towards this building would not compromise privacy of the occupiers of this dwelling. 14. However, the proposal would introduce an unacceptable level of overlooking and as such would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 67 and 71 Longton Road. It would therefore be contrary to Policy N1e of the LP which requires development to respect the amenity of adjacent residential areas. Other Matters 15. The proposal has been made on the basis that the garage/annex would be occupied by family members/inter-generational living. I recognise the advantages of the development to family circumstances however limited information is before me to show what these needs are, or that they can only be met by the proposed development. I note too the lack of objections to the proposal, but this in itself does not indicate a lack of harm arising from the proposal. These factors therefore carry limited weight and do not outweigh the harm I have identified above. 16. I note the appellant’s reference to the Council’s assessment and handling of the application, but this is not a matter before me, nor does it alter my findings. Appeal Decision 6011046 4 Conclusion 17. For the reasons set out above, having regard to the harm the proposal would cause to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area and the residential amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. K Winnard INSPECTOR