Planning permission for the timber annexe had been granted in 2019 without a kitchen being shown on the plans. In rejecting the appellant’s application to amend the plans, the council argued that including such a facility would mean that it would not function as an annexe to the main house and would encourage the occupier to live as a separate household, which would be detrimental to living conditions in both properties.
The inspector referred to the ruling in Uttlesford District Council v Secretary of State for Environment and White , which held that even where accommodation within a domestic curtilage provides facilities for independent day-to-day living, it does not automatically become a separate planning unit from the main house.
He noted that the proposed annexe would not have a separate vehicular access or postal address and that the garden would not be subdivided. The fact that the kitchen would enable meals to be provided did not mean the occupier would live independently of the main house, he reasoned. Neither was he concerned that it would become a separate dwelling in the future, given its proximity to the main house. No material change to what had already been permitted would arise by including a kitchen in the plans, he concluded.
Inspector: Chris Preston; Written representations