Appeal 6000690

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of outbuilding in rear garden at [site address] , Teddington [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/0686, 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 drawing nos: Location Plan, dated 14 March 2025; [name] 01; and [name] 02.

The external materials of the outbuilding hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling and shall be retained as such thereafter.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the [name], prepared by [name], dated 7 May 2025 and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the outbuilding hereby permitted shall be used only for domestic purposes ancillary to the enjoyment of the host dwelling and shall not be used as a separate self-contained residential dwelling or for any industrial, commercial or business use.

Following the submission of the appeal, the [site address] Local Plan 2024 – 2039 (RLP) was adopted in October 2025. The parties were given the opportunity to comment on the change in policy context and where these have been received, they have been taken into consideration.

The main issues relevant to this appeal are the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of nearby occupiers with regard to outlook; and the effect of the proposal upon nearby trees.

The appeal property is an end-terrace dwelling situated within a predominantly residential area. The proposed outbuilding would be positioned at the far end of a deep rear garden. The local pattern of development features back-to-back gardens some of which are separated by an alleyway. Close to the rear boundary of the appeal site lies No. [address], which differs in design and orientation from surrounding properties, located set back from the road bound by the gardens of other dwellings. This property is enclosed by a tall brick wall, whereas most surrounding gardens, including the appeal site, are bound by shorter timber fencing.

The proposed outbuilding would be brick built with a tiled hipped roof with a central crown and domed rooflight. Given the pattern of development the surrounding houses, other than No. 47A, are located a considerable distance from the proposed outbuilding. The outbuilding would be around 3.2 metres tall and would extend across most of the width of the garden. However, given the distances involved and the modest height of it, the proposed outbuilding would not appear overbearing from those houses.

The proposed structure would be positioned at the end of the appeal dwelling’s garden. The layout and size of surrounding gardens, the alleyway that separates them along with the presence of existing outbuildings, means that the outbuilding would generally be sited away from the usable space within nearby gardens. This layout and the modest scale of the outbuilding would ensure that it would not appear overbearing when viewed from nearby gardens, and an adequate outlook would be retained.

The outbuilding would be located closer to the rear elevation of No. 47A than to other properties. However, the outlook from No. 47A is already enclosed by the existing tall brick boundary wall. While the outbuilding would be slightly taller than this wall, it would be set back from it, meaning only part of the crown roof would be visible from the rear elevation. Furthermore, although No. 47A’s garden is relatively shallow, it is wider than those nearby, so the outbuilding would only be visible along one part of the boundary. Taking into account the existing enclosed outlook, the modest height of the outbuilding, and its position relative to No. 47A, the proposal would not appear visually intrusive from the garden or ground-floor rooms and an adequate outlook would be retained.

From the first floor of No. 47A, the outlook primarily comprises the surrounding dwellings and their rear gardens, many of which contain outbuildings. Within this context, the proposed structure, given its modest scale and use of materials sympathetic to the host property, would not appear out of character. The existing brick boundary wall would further reduce its visual impact. Its height and siting would ensure the outbuilding would not appear visually intrusive, and as it would occupy only part of the view, the overall outlook across rear gardens would remain largely unchanged. Consequently, the development would not significantly increase the sense of enclosure for the occupiers of No. 47A and would retain an adequate outlook.

Consequently, the outlook from No. 47A and the surrounding properties would not be unduly enclosed by the proposed development, and it would not significantly harm the living conditions of the surrounding occupiers. Therefore, the proposed development would comply with Policy LP46 of the RLP, insofar as it expects development, amongst other matters, to ensure the heights, massing and siting of new developments retains adequate outlook for neighbouring occupants, avoiding any undue sense of enclosure.

Based on the evidence before me, it appears that a tree was previously located on the appeal site near the proposed outbuilding. However, the appellant has provided evidence that the Council approved an application to fell this tree, which was necessary given the site’s location within a Conservation Area. My site visit confirmed that the tree has now been removed. While there are trees within No. 66’s garden and in other nearby gardens, these are relatively small and situated at a considerable distance from the proposed outbuilding. Given this separation, together with the siting and modest scale of the outbuilding, it is unlikely that works to these trees would be required, even during construction. Furthermore, I have no substantiated evidence before me to demonstrate that nearby trees would be unlikely to survive for many years due to the proposal. Accordingly, the development would not harm the positive contribution these trees make to the character and appearance of the area.

Therefore, the proposed outbuilding would not harm nearby trees, and the proposal would comply with Policy LP42 of the RLP. This policy expects developments, amongst other matters, to protect, respect, contribute to and enhance trees and landscapes.

The appeal site is located within the [address] Conservation Area (CA) and as such, I have a duty under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to require that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. [address] Conservation Area No.83 Conservation Area Appraisal identifies that the significance of the CA comes from the examples of mid-Victorian two-bay terraces, the Victorian terrace plan form, and the use of London mixed stock brick, amongst other matters.

The appeal property is a Victorian terrace dwelling and as such, the design and siting of the house does positively contribute to the significance of the CA. The proposed outbuilding would be located within the confines of and at the end of the garden and as such it would not harm the Victorian terrace plan form. Furthermore, given its location it would generally be well screened from most viewpoints. The outbuilding is also proposed to be constructed using similar bricks to those used in the host dwelling which is a material that positively contributes to the significance of the CA. Therefore, the design and siting of the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the CA, as a whole. The Council came to a similar conclusion and for the reasons given above and the evidence before me, I find no reason to conclude otherwise.

Further to the statutory commencement condition, a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the permitted plans is necessary in the interests of certainty. Furthermore, a condition requiring the materials used match those in the existing dwelling is necessary in the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the CA.

It is necessary that the development is carried out in accordance with the [name] in the interests of fire safety, to comply with Policy D12 of the London Plan.

A condition requiring the outbuilding is only used for purposes ancillary to the enjoyment of the main dwelling is necessary in the interests of the living conditions of nearby residents, including the occupiers of [site address] . I have revised the wording of this condition in the interests of certainty and enforceability.

In light of the felling of the tree at the end of the appeal dwellings garden and the distance between the proposed outbuilding and nearby trees, a condition requiring the submission of an [name] would not be necessary, in this instance.

The proposed development would accord with the development plan, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.