Supported living annexe at 22 Walters Road, Hoo St Werburgh, Rochester

What was proposed

The application sought to extend an existing rear outbuilding and convert it into supported living accommodation with a wheelchair-accessible path.

“The proposed development seeks to extend an existing outbuilding for use as an annexe for supported living accommodation. The annexe would be accessed via a newly created wheelchair suitable path to the north side of 22 Walters Road.”

“The annexe is arranged internally as entrance way, bedroom, bathroom and open plan kitchen/living area served by bi-fold doors to the garden area, and plant room to the rear.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and building work

A 2018 permission approved a separate dwelling, but later works were in the wrong position and a 2024 application was withdrawn.

“MC/18/1441 Extension and alterations to existing bungalow incorporating increase in roof height for formation of additional living accommodation in roof space including roof lights, rear dormer with access onto top of existing rear element to form balcony and construction of a part two/part 3 storey side/rear extension to form a separate dwelling Decision: Approval with Conditions Decided: August 2018”

“MC/24/1866 Construction of an extension to side together with associated external alterations to form separate dwelling and installation of roof lights to front and rear of main dwelling Decision: Withdrawn Decided: April 2025”

Officer report

Why officers advised refusal

Officers considered there was no dwelling for the annexe to serve, so it would be a separate backland planning unit rather than minor development.

“However, in this case there is no original dwelling for the annexe to be ancillary to, thus resulting in a lack of planning unit to condition the annexe to remain ancillary to. The classic definition of planning unit is found in Burdle v SSE 1972 where the court held there are three issues to consider.”

“Therefore, following the above conclusions, it is considered that as the proposed annexe would not be ancillary to an existing planning unit, it would form its own planning unit. In that case, an assessment of the annexe as its own separate planning unit in this location would lead to a conclusion that it would fail to satisfy Policy H11 as it would not constitute minor development, furthermore, Policy H9 relates to backland development which would relate to a new planning…”

Officer report

Comments from neighbours and others

One objection raised concerns about land levels, light and plant room noise; two letters supported accommodation for a vulnerable individual.

“Land level change between Walters Road and Wylie Road Loss of light to kitchen and garden Plant room noise…”

“Needed accommodation for vulnerable individual Would not impact local community Small scale development Policy compliant…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Senior Planner outlined the proposal, and the Ward Councillor spoke about family circumstances, access, the Neighbourhood Plan and possible conditions.

The committee discussion

Members sympathised with the family, while officers explained that the annexe could not be tied to a dwelling and suggested alternative applications.

“The Chief Planning Officer wanted to support the application and understood their needs and wanted to find a planning solution, however, he explained that permission for an annexe could not be granted for this planning application as there was not a dwelling for the annexe to be an ancillary to.”

“The Service Manager - Development Management clarified that the footings, from the previous application, were closer to the boundary than what was approved. If the dwelling continued to be constructed it would not comply with the permission granted in 2018.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused the application for the reason given in the officer recommendation.

“The Chief Planning Officer confirmed that if a revised planning application was submitted and there were less than five representatives, there would be no requirement to come back to the Planning Committee. Decision:”

“REFUSED for the reason set out in the report.”

Minutes