Annexe extension and dormer at Sandy Lane Barn, Tavistock

What was proposed

The application proposed a single-storey extension, a dormer and timber and metal cladding for the existing annexe.

“Development: Single-storey extension & insertion of a dormer to the existing Annexe. Provision of cladding (timber & metal) to the existing Annexe.”

Officer report

The site and existing building

The site is in open countryside north of Tavistock and contains a dwelling, detached annexe, garden, parking and turning area.

“Site Description: The site is located c. 0.52km north of Tavistock within the open countryside. The site hosts Sandy Lane Barn (a dwelling), a detached annexe, set in a garden, with a gravelled parking and turning area. To the north of the plot there is a stable building currently under construction. Vehicular access is provided from the north west corner of the site and leads out the public highway (Kilworthy Road) which leads south to Tavistock.”

“The existing building measures c. 76 square metres in terms of floor area, although the first floor accommodation is set within the pitched roof and full head height is not available over the full first floor area. The building is laid out with two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a hall and a small store cupboard on the ground floor, with an open plan kitchen, living and office area at first floor under the pitched roof.”

Officer report

Planning history

The building began as an approved garage and storage building, later receiving a certificate for use as a residential annexe.

“The Proposal: In 2004, permission was granted for a free-standing garage building with storage at first floor level under 5523/2004/TAV. In 2017, a Certificate of Lawfulness was granted for the existing use of the building as a residential annexe under 0939/17/CLE.”

Officer report

Why officers advised refusal

Officers considered the annexe self-contained, the location unsustainable, the design poorly composed and marine-site mitigation absent.

“Planning Balance: The site is located within an unsustainable location for development, which weighs against the application, as does the poor design and large scale relative to the host dwelling, which diminishes its primacy within the site. The lack of mitigation for recreational impacts on the Tamar EMS also weighs against the application.”

“Conclusion: The proposal would deliver one smaller unit of accommodation but it is sited in an unsustainable location for residential development, which would lock in reliance on the private car, thus undermining the transition to a low carbon future. The scheme represents poor architectural composition that does not complement its setting and it challenges the host dwelling as the primary feature of the site.”

Officer report

Consultation and public views

The Town Council supported the scheme, while Environmental Health and South West Water raised no objection; one resident letter supported it.

“Consultations: • Tavistock Town Clerk Support • Environmental Health No objection • DCC Highways No comments received • South West Water No objection…”

“Representations: Representations from Residents One letter of support has been received and includes the following points: • NAPC's national position is that ancillary and modular development, such as the proposed annexe extension, makes efficient use of existing residential plots and supports flexible living arrangements, including multigenerational households.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent said the main dwelling was spatially limited and that a condition could keep the annexe ancillary to it.

The committee debate

Members questioned the residential facilities and whether a condition could keep the annexe tied to the main building permanently.

“The Planning Officer confirmed the planning history showed that it was classed as a ‘residential annexe’. The Head of Planning read out Paragraph 4.129 of the Council’s adopted SPD. In respect of residential annexes, ancillary relates to use and degree of dependence on the main dwelling, not the physical attachment or design appearance of the annexe.”

“It was suggested by a couple of Members that a condition could be imposed to keep the annexe tied to the main building in perpetuity. In response, the Head of Planning stated that a condition could not be made to restrict what could (or could not) be sold. It would have to be made through a legal agreement.”

Minutes

The vote

The proposal was moved and seconded, then put to the vote.

“After the debate, it was PROPOSED and SECONDED and, when put to the vote, it was:”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused the application in accordance with the planning officer’s report and recommendation.

“RESOLVED that the planning application be REFUSED as per the Planning Officer’s report and recommendation.”

Minutes