Appeal 3319518

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] by reason of noise or disturbance, and on the living conditions of future occupants of the outbuilding and the occupants of [site address] .

The appeal site lies within the Hayes Village Conservation Area. It is a semi-detached bay-fronted dwelling on the west side of [address] with 5 bedrooms. It has off-road parking at the front and a rear garden. Access to the rear garden can be gained around the north-facing side elevation of the dwelling. A detached single storey building has been erected in the rear part of the rear garden. It has 2 rooflights, one small window at the rear and two windows and a door in the front elevation. The rear garden in which it sits meets the rear garden of no.[address]. No.[address] is situated to the north of the appeal site.

The typical grain and pattern of development is semi-detached houses (though not exclusively) facing [address] and semi-detached houses facing [address]. There does not appear to be backland or tandem housing development in the area.

The proposal is to change the use of the detached outbuilding to a guest room to be used ancillary to the main house. No external alterations are proposed. The internal floor area would be approximately 40 sqm. The submitted plans show an L-shaped kitchen area within the main room (annotated as a guest lounge and bedroom) and a separate WC and shower room. A key question is whether what is being proposed would have the distinctive characteristics of a dwellinghouse such that it would comprise a self-contained separate residential unit. It is established through case law that the distinctive characteristic of a dwellinghouse is its ability to afford to those who use it the facilities required for day-to-day private domestic existence (see Gravesham Borough Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment (1984) 47 P & CR 142). Furthermore, the Housing Act 2004 implies that a separate unit for independent occupation would need the basic amenities of a toilet, personal washing facilities and cooking facilities.

What is proposed in the outbuilding in this appeal would provide a potential occupier with the basic amenities for day-to-day private domestic existence. He or she would not need to access the main house in order to achieve a day-to-day existence in the outbuilding. Furthermore, access to the outbuilding would not be dependent on walking through the inside of the main house.

I have considered if a planning condition which specified that the outbuilding must not be used as an independent self-contained unit of occupation would be appropriate and workable. However, a condition such as that would be very difficult to enforce. Detecting a self-contained use would be problematic for the Local Planning Authority and the building would have its own kitchen, living/sleeping area and a WC and shower room and independent front door. A condition would not therefore overcome concerns or meet policy tests for

A separate self-contained dwelling in the rear garden at the appeal site would harm the characteristic pattern and grain of residential development in the immediate area. Two self-contained units on the plot would appear squeezed in and incongruous and the residential pattern of the Conservation Area would not be preserved.

Policy DMHD 2 “Outbuildings” of the London Borough of Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 – Development Management Policies (2020) “LP” indicates that the use of an outbuilding shall be for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house and not capable for use as independent residential accommodation. In this case, the outbuilding as shown in the submitted plans would be capable for use as independent residential accommodation contrary to that policy. That policy also states that primary living accommodation such as a kitchen or bathroom will not be permitted in an outbuilding and so the proposal before me would breach the policy in that respect also. 10.Consequently, I conclude that that proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and be contrary to policy DMHD 2 of the LP. Living conditions of Occupants of 41 & [address] and [name] of the Outbuilding 11.The comings and goings of a separate household in the rear garden of no. [site address] would be likely to cause undue noise and disturbance to the adjoining occupants of [address] to the north. Nos 41 and [address]. 12.The windows in the front elevation of the outbuilding would be overlooked from the rear windows of no. [site address] such that the privacy of the future occupants would be unduly compromised, and similarly, the privacy of the occupants of no.41 would be compromised by overlooking from the residential occupants of the outbuilding. Furthermore, I am concerned that the rear garden of no.41 could not provide adequate private amenity space for two self-contained residential units (i.e. no.41 and the proposed development as a self-contained new home). 13.On these issues, I conclude that the proposed change of use would harm the living conditions of the occupants of [address] in respect of noise and disturbance. It would also harm the living conditions of the occupants of no. [site address] in respect of loss of privacy and it would harm the future occupants of the outbuilding by reason of loss of privacy. There would be breaches of policies DMHB 11(B) and DMHD 2 of the LP.