# 5 Silverwood Road, Peterborough (annexe to flat)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Fuller
- **Authority:** Peterborough (East of England)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010349
- **Application reference:** 25/01209/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Retrospective change of use of a granny annexe to a separate one-bedroom flat
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4, P3, TR4, L2(1)(d)(ii)
- **Development plan policies:** Peterborough Local Plan 2016-2036 LP13, LP17, Appendix C
- **Main issues:** parking and highway safety, occupiers' living conditions, neighbours' privacy
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, living-conditions, annexe, retrospective, parking, l2-1-d, drafting-slip, transitional-no-consultation, tier-2

## Summary
Retrospective use of a rear granny annexe in Peterborough as a separate one-bedroom flat. Its main rooms face a tall boundary wall, its bedroom is overlooked from the main house, and the two homes share a tandem driveway on a congested street. Under S4 these harms (P3, TR4, L2(1)(d)(ii)) substantially outweighed one additional home. Dismissed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The changes to the Framework do not affect the merits of this case in a material way and I, therefore, have not consulted the parties with regard to these changes." (DL ¶5).
- **Highway safety.** "Irrespective of the low levels of accidents recorded in Silverwood Road, the development creates a greater risk of conflict between road users to the detriment of highway safety." (DL ¶10).
- **Living conditions.** "the outlook is extremely poor considering these are rooms where occupants could reasonably be expected to spend significant periods of time" (DL ¶14).
- **L2.** "the development fails to meet (d)(ii) which requires development to maintain safe access and egress for occupiers, as well as acceptable living standards for residents in terms of daylight, sunlight and privacy" (DL ¶24).
- **Personal circumstances.** "there is no over-riding reason to allow the development to address the occupants personal circumstances" (DL ¶26).

## Planning balance
S4: HO7 substantial weight (the letter writes "Policy H07 of the Framework states that substantial weight should be given", DL ¶32). But the flat would "conflict with other policies of the Framework, including P3 in respect of living conditions and TR4 in respect of access and parking" (DL ¶33), and "I find the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶33).

## What made the difference
The annexe's rooms were designed as ancillary to the house. As a separate home, the wall-facing main rooms and overlooked bedroom gave unacceptable living conditions.

## Transferable points
- L2(1)(d)(ii) safe access and acceptable living standards apply to extra homes within residential curtilages, including annexe conversions (DL ¶24).
- A low recorded accident rate does not answer a parking-conflict objection on a congested street (DL ¶10).

## Policy findings
- **TR4: fail.** shared tandem driveway without independent access; congested street, parking on pavements; risk of conflict despite low accident record (DL 7-11, 33)
- **P3: fail.** living and dining rooms face a tall boundary wall at close range - poor daylight and outlook; bedroom overlooked from No 5 (DL 12-16, 33)
- **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail.** fails safe access and acceptable living standards (daylight, sunlight, privacy) (DL 24)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** letter says H07; one dwelling where no five-year supply (DL 32)
- **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 31-33)

## Key facts
- Annexe approved 2018 (18/00056/HHFUL) and occupied as a separate flat since 2018 (DL 2)
- Current occupants a homeless family with a child; Article 8 considered but not decisive (DL 25-26)
- No harm to neighbours' privacy (DL 17-23)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010349
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a3bcceec-0306-4019-8310-41720e6060ce

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010349.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.