Agenda item

Change of use of 2no. outbuildings to granny annexes. 

Recommendation: Approval. 

RESOLVED: That a decision on the application be deferred for a Member site visit to consider the proposal.

Change of use of 2no. outbuildings to granny annexes.

Officers introduced the application which was recommended for approval. Members were informed that there was potential for an appeal on this application hence the Council needed to demonstrate that it had learnt from previous appeal decisions.

A petition in objection to the application had been received. The lead petitioner was in attendance to address the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

• The original report contained an incorrect front view of the property.
• The correct view was provided, showing the left-hand side of the property.
• The view included numbers 20, 18, and 16 to the right, and numbers 19 and 21 to the left.
• The property owners had dug up the front shared drive for one week, which had then remained for seven months.
• They illegally tapped into the mains water pipe, causing brown water issues.
• Affinity Water had had to fix the pipe on several occasions.
• The owners damaged fences and exposed neighbouring properties.
• The property was used as an unlicensed HMO with up to 10 people living in it.
• The house was covered in mould, posing a risk to a newborn child.
• Water and electric pipes were fed through a trench around the back, causing the fencing to fall down.
• The owners claimed the outbuildings were for their parents, but residents feared they would be rented out.
• The Council had rejected the planning permission for the outbuildings.
• The residents were concerned about the impact on the street scene and community.
• There were issues with litter and fly-tipping in the area.
• The safety of children and neighbouring properties was compromised.

Members noted that only material considerations could be taken into account.

The agent for the application was also in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

• The agent advocated for the approval of the planning application for the proposed use of the outbuildings as residential annexes for the applicant's elderly parents.
• The proposal aimed to provide a safe, comfortable, and accessible living environment for the applicant's parents, allowing them to maintain their independence while being close to their family.
• The proposed development was intended to have a minimal impact on the surrounding area, as the outbuildings were already in place and their conversion to residential use would not alter the character or appearance of the area.
• There was no significant increase in traffic or demand on local services expected, as the annexes were intended for family use only.
• The proposal aligned with the National Planning Policy Framework, which emphasised the importance of providing a range of housing options to meet the diverse needs of the population, including the elderly and those with disabilities.
• The proposed development complied with local planning policies that encouraged the use of existing buildings for residential purposes.
• Concerns raised by neighbours were noted, but they were not considered relevant or significant enough to warrant refusal of the application.
• Planning permission would be required to change the use of the annexes to self-contained dwellings, and this issue was addressed in the proposed conditions.
• Several recent appeal decisions had allowed similar developments within Hillingdon.
• The existing dwellings were let to families, but section 21 eviction notices had been served, with the intention for the applicant and their brother to move into the properties as soon as the current tenants moved out.
• The Committee was requested to approve the application for the use of the outbuildings as residential annexes.

Members sought clarity from the agent on a number of points.

They asked if there had been any previous applications approved by the inspectorate of the same size. In response the agent explained that the principal deciding factor in these appeals was the amount of garden space available, and in this case, there was a very large garden.

Councillors also enquired about the two separate buildings and their intended use. It was confirmed that the buildings were for the applicant's parents to live close to but separate from the main households.

The Committee suggested that it would be better to have an extension on the existing buildings instead of separate annexes. The agent agreed that traditionally, granny annexes were attached to the main dwelling but noted that separate structures had been used successfully by other families.

Members questioned the security and accessibility of the annexes for elderly people. In reply, the agent acknowledged that the current residential environment was not ideal but stated that improvements could be made if the application was approved.

In response to further questions from the Committee regarding who was currently living in the main properties, the agent confirmed that the properties were let to separate families, but the intention was for the applicant and their brother to move in once the current tenants moved out.

Councillors also queried the need for the annexes if the elderly parents were not currently living there. It was explained that the long-term plan was to use the properties as suggested, and the idea to use the annexes as residential spaces had developed more recently.

It was noted that Ward Councillor Darran Davies had submitted a written representation in objection to the application, but it was not possible to read this out on this occasion as Councillor Davies was substituting for Councillor Higgins on the Committee.

Officers noted the importance of focussing on material matters. It was clear that the property was currently rented, and evidence of a section 21 notice had been provided. The scale of the outbuildings was approximately 40 square metres, and it was noted that an appeal regarding a nearby property had been allowed at 37.8 square metres. It was confirmed that the internal floor area at the development included a kitchen, bedroom, and toilet, but Members were reminded that the plans for the annex did not depict a cooking area.

It was highlighted that the Council had rejected similar applications before, but the appeals had subsequently been successful; officers had a legal obligation to learn from the inspector's measures through appeals. It was noted that officers had obtained statutory declarations and section 21 notices to secure the best possible scenario for the petitioners and residents. The point about HMO was different from the previous application on Fraser Avenue, and the petitioner could raise a petition if concerned about the potential for outbuildings to be used in conjunction with an HMO. A landscaping condition was suggested to provide level access between the main dwelling and the annex suitable for use by elderly people.

Given that the proposal related to two different properties, Members suggested that there should be some clear demarcation within the outbuildings to reflect this.

Councillors asked for clarification about the statutory declarations, questioning whether they were offered independently by the applicants or suggested by the planning team. Officers explained that the declarations were not a requirement for the application but were obtained to ensure the applicant went above and beyond the conditions secured in previous appeals.

Members enquired if there was a kitchen in the outbuildings, as it was not shown on the plans. It was clarified that the annex allowed for separate living accommodation, but the kitchen reference was from a different appeal decision.

A question was raised regarding two separate letters from a GP about parents with special needs being accommodated in the outbuilding. Officers confirmed that the existing property had a ground floor kitchen, and the GP's report was based on medical need rather than the layout shown on the plan.

Councillors expressed doubts about the intentions of the applicant, noting that the applicant's family members were not living in the property. Officers reiterated that the application was for ancillary living accommodation and that conditions were in place to control its use.

There was a request to add a condition to ensure that only immediate family would be allowed to live in the outbuilding.

To clarify matters, Members recommended a site visit to enable them to fully evaluate what was proposed.  

Deferral for a site visit was proposed, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed with 5 Councillors voting in favour and one against.

RESOLVED: That a decision on the application be deferred for a Member site visit to consider the proposal.