Erection of an extension to and conversion of existing detached garage to create ancillary living accommodation

Refusal Reasons

• ✗Housing Policy 11 requires that in order for an application for conversion of a non-residential building to residential use to be considered acceptable, the building must be redundant for its original purpose. Its original purpose has been replaced by garaging, approved under PA 92/01349. It has been indicated in the application that the building is being used albeit not for the storage of motor cars and that if there was a need for a garage in the future, this could be accommodated by the erection of a new garage, perhaps under the provisions of the Permitted Development Order. This would suggest that the building is not presently redundant and/or that there may be a need for garaging in the future, particularly as there would be an additional residential unit within the curtilage as a result of the proposed conversion. As such it is considered that it has not been demonstrated that the building is redundant and that in the future, particularly after the creation of additional living accommodation, it would not be required in the future, leading to the possibility of the erection of further garage facilities and thus the proposal does not comply with the first requirement of Housing Policy 11.
• ✗Housing Policy 11 requires that the building is large enough to accommodate a dwelling without extension: under the Housing (Flats) Regulations 1982 the unit would be large enough to accommodate two persons on a permanent basis without any extension. The extension proposed is therefore not essential. Furthermore, the proposed changes do not restore the original appearance of the building: the proposed porch adds a domestic element which would not have been found on the original barn and the extension does not appear as something which would have originally been in place.
• ✗The visibility afforded to drivers of vehicles emerging from the site is impeded by the existing roadside buildings. As such, it is considered that the additional use of this access which would be generated by the conversion of the building to additional living accommodation, is unacceptable.