Garage annexe at 46 Elwyndene Road, March

What was proposed

The application sought a single-storey garage extension, conversion into an annexe, solar panels and changes to windows.

“This application seeks to erect a single-storey extension to the existing garage and the conversion of this to form an annexe to the host dwelling, addition of new solar panels to the roof slope, and changes to fenestration.”

“Planning permission is sought to erect a single-storey extension to the existing garage and conversion to form an annexe, addition of new solar panels to roof slope, and changes to fenestration.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a detached house in a built-up part of March, with a rear garage, near a conservation area and listed buildings.

“SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The application site is located at Elwyndene Road in a built-up area of March. No. 46 is a two-storey detached dwelling which is constructed with brickwork and render with a tiled pitched roof and is surrounded by properties mixed in design.”

“The site is located adjacent to the March Conservation Area and in proximity to Grade II and II* listed buildings which front High Street.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A previous two-storey garage extension and annexe was refused in May 2025, while earlier garage and house extensions were approved.

“Erect a 2-storey extension to existing garage and conversion to form an annexe, addition of new solar panels to roofslope, and changes to fenestration Refuse 9 May 2025”

“Erection of a 2-storey side, single-storey rear and front porch extensions to existing dwelling Grant 22 Oct 2003”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the annexe an independent dwelling because of its access, parking and garden, creating overdevelopment contrary to policy LP16.

“The accommodation proposed would be considered as an independent unit as it would have its own access to the side of the host dwelling, own parking area and garden space, thus being tantamount to a new dwelling. As such, the proposal is not considered an annexe and would therefore operate as an independent dwelling unit which cannot be ancillary to the host dwelling.”

“As the proposed annexe is considered an independent dwelling located to the rear of the host dwelling and there is considered to be significant overdevelopment arising from creating two dwellings at the site.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish or town council supported the proposal, the conservation officer raised no objection, and eleven support letters were received.

“Parish/Town Council: Recommendation; Approval.”

“Support: Eleven letters of support received from addresses in March, including Elwydene Road, Creek Road, High Street, Stonecross Way, Mills Gardens, Mill Hill Lane…”

Officer report

Residents’ views

Supporters described the proposal as modest, unobtrusive and useful for family support, while a representative letter sought unchanged plans and screening.

“Addressed in Design Considerations and Visual Amenity of the Area section of the report. Annexe provides care and support for generations within family.”

“Comments Overview Officer response Does not object to the proposal subject to the proposal not altering from the current published plan, and suitable high fencing is provided to provide screening and privacy.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The ward councillor, the agent and the applicant presented family circumstances, design changes, parking arrangements and proposed safeguards against separate sale.

Members’ debate

Members discussed family support, the smaller design, shared utilities, visibility, personal information and whether a legal agreement could secure the annexe’s connection.

“He added that it has been confirmed that the utilities are going to be fed from the same supply as the house and it is only going to be an annexe, feeling that this is a very genuine and worthwhile case and he asked members of the committee to support him by approving the application.”

“David Rowen stated that if the committee decide to grant the application then a reference had been made earlier with regards to entering in a legal agreement to secure the accommodation as related to the dwelling. He added that if members make a proposal to grant the application then they do need to consider whether that needs to be included within the proposal.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted permission against the officer recommendation, with delegated authority for conditions and a legal agreement tying the annexe to the existing property.

“Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation with delegated authority to officers to add appropriate conditions and a legal agreement to tie the annexe to the existing property.”

“Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they do not consider that the application is contrary to LP16 as they believe that the size and scale is for an annexe and will be used for its intended purpose and they believe it is a worthy application.”

Minutes