Appeal win: retrospective approval for gym to annexe extension and conversion

Our recent appeal win against Wycombe District Council raised a common question; whether the proposed annexe accommodation constituted a separate residential unit or ancillary use.

Gym to annexe:

The original application sought retrospective planning approval for the retention of a self-contained residential annexe.  However the planning history on site was complex:

• a previous planning approval had been granted for the extension of an outbuilding for use as a gym and games room;
• following planning approval, the appellant needed to alter the plans to create a granny annexe to provide ongoing care for their relative;
• the internal arrangements had to be altered to accommodate this and certain external design details were altered to improve the look of the outbuilding.

An attempt to regularise the situation had been made with the submission of a retrospective planning application.  

Application response:

Wycombe District Council refused the application and a visit by planning enforcement also recommended the demolition of the building in its entirety.  The Council felt that the outbuilding was tantamount to the creation of a separate dwelling and raised concerns about overlooking and impact on the local context and neighbouring amenity.  

Seeking retrospective planning approval at appeal:

With the threat of enforcement on its way we were called in to assist. We reviewed the previous planning permission for the gym against what was built and made a compelling case for retrospective planning at appeal, using the written representation route.  
Our case raised the following points:

1. The nature of refusal: retrospective permission was refused on the basis that it was for a separate dwelling.  However, this was expressly not what had been applied for, rather a self-contained residential annexe as ancillary accommodation.  
2. Proportion and consistency in decision making: we identified how the refusal and response was entirely disproportionate to the breach of planning control given the nature of the extant permission for the gym extension and the reasons for refusal.
3. Condition: The previous approval for the gym extension utilised a condition to control the ancillary use of the space now and in the future.  A similar condition could be used to control the use of the annexe.

Furthermore, one of the reasons for refusal highlighted in the officer’s report stated that the unit “may not well be used as an annexe”. We felt it important to note that the pure fear of intention should not constitute a material planning consideration – especially if such fears can be adequately controlled by condition.
We successfully justified the need for the ancillary accommodation; how the unit met all the necessary tests to prove its ancillary use; that there was no impact on local amenity or context; and that the changes to design actually improved the outbuilding and helped it to better integrate into its garden context.

Approval at appeal:

The Planning Inspector, after assessing the evidence before him, agreed with many of the points we raised, applied a condition to secure the ancillary use of the annexe for the future and agreed that retrospective permission should be granted.

About us:

Plainview Planning is an independent town and country planning consultancy, made up of a group of knowledgeable and passionate planners and urban designers. We work hard to help our clients get the permissions they need on site and engage effectively with local Councils. Our experience is wide-ranging and we undertake planning applications, appeals, enforcement, changes of use and development projects. Contact our team to see how we can best assist via enquiries@plainview.co.uk