Appeal 3363706

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted to ‘install boiler and W/C to existing single storey outbuilding for use as a games room/storage and garden room to the rear garden’ at [site address] , Hanworth, Hounslow [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2024/3981, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: 323HR-300-01A; 323HR-300-02A; and 323HR-301-01A.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

Hounslow’s Emerging Local Plan 2020-2041 (ELP) is to be adopted in 2026. However, I am not aware of its exact stage of preparation, the extent of any unresolved objections, or whether policies will be considered consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework. Consequently, and whilst I have taken the ELP into account, I have considered the appeal under the adopted development plan at the time.

The main issue is whether the proposal would be incidental to the host dwelling and its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with specific regard to noise and disturbance.

There is an existing detached outbuilding sited along the rear garden boundary, currently used as a games/storage room. The plans show that a W/C and boiler would be installed within it. Section 8 of the [name], Sustainability and Design Codes Supplementary Planning Document 2024 (SPD) states that outbuildings designed in a way to facilitate an independent residential unit will be refused. Primary living accommodation such as, amongst others, a bathroom, would not be allowed.

The proposed W/C and boiler would occupy minimal floorspace, with the remainder to be used as a games/storage/garden room. This indicates the outbuilding’s continued use for incidental purposes. The appellant has also clarified that the proposed development is to facilitate a more comfortable and practical use of this recreational space. Additionally, the W/C would comprise a toilet and hand basin only. It would not constitute a full bathroom facility which could enable primary living accommodation use. There would, therefore, still be a reliance on the dwelling for use of its facilities. There is also nothing to suggest why an outbuilding could not have its own. Furthermore, the scheme relates to a games/storage/garden room. A separate residential unit has not been applied for and is therefore not before me.

The proposal would allow the outbuilding to be used for longer periods all year round. However, the level of noise and disturbance would be similar to the current situation, as it is already used as a games/storage room. Given that the outbuilding will be functionally linked to the host dwelling, the comings and goings would be limited to the existing occupiers only. The degree of noise and disruption would also be typical for this residential area, which is characterised by several outbuildings within rear gardens. Its siting to the rear boundary also ensures a suitable distance from the rear elevations of the adjoining properties. The outbuilding’s rear door is an existing feature, and the appeal scheme does not include any modifications to it.

The proposed development would thus be incidental to the host dwelling and would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of adjoining properties. Accordingly, it would not conflict with Policies CC1, CC2 or SC7 of the Local Plan 2015 – 2030 or the SPD. Together, and amongst other things, these seek for development proposals to not result in harm to the amenity of neighbouring residents.

To provide certainty and for enforcement purposes, I have identified the approved plans. I have not sought to control the use of the building. It is already incidental, has been erected as such and there is nothing to suggested it is not being used for the same. The approved additions thereto do not propose to change its use.

I recommend that the appeal should be allowed, subject to the stated conditions, given it would comply with the development plan and there is nothing compelling to suggest a decision other than in accordance therewith.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, subject to the conditions set out above.