Appeal 3339001
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
7 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing timber shed and the erection of a new outbuilding to accommodate working from home space, gym, associated WC and garden storage at 60 Barrowgate, Chiswick [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application ref: 00079/60/P6 dated 28 November 2023 and subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The permission hereby granted shall relate to the following approved plans: 1000AL(02)0001 Rev 01 (location plan), 1053AL(02)1000 Rev 02 (existing site plan), 1053AL(02)1001 Rev 01 (existing plan and north elevation), 1053AL(04)2100 Rev 00 (proposed site plan), 1053AL(04)2101 Rev 00 (proposed plan and elevations), 1053 AL(05)2102 Rev 00 (proposed rear elevation) and 1053AL(04)2110 Rev 00 (proposed fire strategy plan).
The building hereby permitted shall only be used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the existing dwelling at [site address] and shall not be used, or internally altered, to include the creation of kitchen or bathroom facilities, to enable its use, as a separate, independent unit of accommodation or for any business purposes.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of adjoining properties.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a large semi-detached dwelling located within a road of mature dwellings of varied size being a mixture of detached and semi-detached. The reasonably sized rear garden is accessed via a gate to the side of the dwelling with an existing small shed located along the rear boundary. A row of trees runs alongside the shed with high screen fence along the boundary with the adjoining flatted development to the rear.
The site lies towards the southern edge of the Turnham Green Conservation Area which is characterised by the green itself located within the northern part and residential areas to the south within which the appeal site is located. [address] itself comprises of a variety of sizes and designs, many large detached and semi-detached dwellings, interspersed with more modest dwellings and some flats. Tall mature trees make a major contribution to the streetscape. The significance of this part of the conservation area is mainly derived from these two elements in providing an attractive street scene.
Permission was granted for a detached outbuilding in the same position on the appeal site in November 20231. The current appeal scheme differs in that it includes a ‘bathroom’ within the outbuilding and the Council is concerned that would create the potential for the building to be used as a separate, independent dwelling and, in turn, for the associated noise and disturbance to adversely impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring properties.
In this respect the Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines SPD (2017) (SPD) states that it is essential that outbuildings are only used in a manner incidental to the main house and if designed in a way that may facilitate future use in such a manner will be refused due to impact on neighbours; primary living accommodation including, amongst other things, bathrooms will not be allowed.
The Appellant confirms that the main part of the proposed outbuilding would be used in part as a home office and in part as a gym / yoga studio incidental to the host dwelling. The building would incorporate a small WC with wash hand basin located off the office / studio area as well as a separate area for garden storage. The WC would not contain a bath or shower.
In terms of its proposed use, the building would be consistent with suitable and appropriate incidental uses to a residential property. In addition, whilst the use of outbuildings such as that proposed often rely on the host dwelling to provide associated facilities, I see no reason why the inclusion of a small WC in this instance should necessarily result in the potential for the building to be used as a separate dwelling given that it would lack other facilities such as full bathroom facilities, including a shower or bath, and kitchen, which would be required to enable that use.
In addition, it would only be possible to access the outbuilding via the side gate and rear garden of the host dwelling which would render its use as an independent unit of accommodation unlikely as this would not be compatible with the use of the existing dwelling. In any event, a condition could be imposed to prevent the independent use of the building to accord with its intended use. The Appellant has indicated a willingness to accept such a
Section 05
condition.
Overall, I find that there would be no conflict with Policies SC7 and CC2 of the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 (2015) (LP) which seek, amongst other things, to support high quality urban design, to create 1 Council ref: 00079/60/P5 attractive, distinctive and liveable places and which support residential extensions that maintain the character of the area and do not result in harm to the amenity of neighbouring residents. Nor would it conflict with the aims and objectives of the SPD.
In respect of the effect on the conservation area, I concur with Council that its significance would not be harmed by the proposal and its character and appearance would be preserved.
Section 06
Other Matters
I have had regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and find that the proposal would accord with its objectives to achieve good design and enable development that is sympathetic to local character including the surrounding built environment.
In respect of conditions, in addition to one to relate to the approved plans in the interest of clarity, as indicated above, a condition to ensure that the building is used only for purposes incidental to the host dwelling is necessary to control other uses which may be unsuitable in this location.
Section 07
Conclusions
I therefore conclude that this appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 482No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 28 June 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 1 May 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3339001
- Application reference
- 00079/60/P6
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Hounslow
- Planning authority code
- E09000018
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Unknown
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 27 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 19 February 2024
- Valid date
- 2 March 2024
- Start date
- 19 March 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 12 February 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 28 June 2024
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 53199
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21