Appeal 6002066

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an outbuilding in the rear garden for incidental use as home office/gym at [site address] , Hounslow [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/2507, and subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted is as shown on the approved [name]: L(10)001 (Revision: P02), L(10)010 (Revision: P02) and L(20)100 (Revision: P02).

I have taken the description of development set out in the banner above from the planning application form. However, in my formal decision, I have deleted the reference to ‘retrospective’ as this does not relate to an act of development.

The application form states that the development commenced in 2023. On my site visit, I observed that it was substantially complete, with furniture in place and electricity supply connected. Aside from the swap of the gym and home office, what I saw broadly reflected the submitted plans. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis that the development has already taken place, as did the Council.

The Council refers to the preparation of the emerging Hounslow Local Plan 2020- 2041 (the emerging Local Plan) which was submitted for examination in June 2025. I have not been provided with a copy of this document. The Council’s reasons for refusal did not cite the emerging Local Plan policies. I note the emerging Local Plan remains at an early stage of preparation. Having regard to paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and mindful of the status of the emerging Local Plan, I have therefore determined the appeal in accordance with the adopted

The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to disturbance.

The appeal property sits at the end of a terrace and has a side access to the rear garden. The street is predominately residential, with properties of broadly similar style and age many of which have been extended and altered. The appeal property and its neighbours also benefit from typically long rear gardens with various forms of outbuildings within them.

The outbuilding is sited at the end of a long rear garden. It has a slightly sloped flat roof and an overall height of approximately 2.6m. While taller and further forward than the neighbouring outbuilding at [address], the roof is lower on that side, and the structure is set back from the shared boundaries. It therefore accords with the [name], Sustainability and Design Codes Supplementary Planning Document – Part A5 [name] (2024) (the SPD). Although there is disagreement as to whether its footprint exceeds that of the host dwelling, a reasonable area of usable garden space remains between the house and the outbuilding. Given its height, scale, massing and siting, the development appears subservient to the host dwelling and maintains the established rear-garden character, again complying with the expectations of the SPD.

Overall, I conclude that the development respects the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It therefore complies with Policies CC1, CC2 and SC7of the Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 (2015) (the LP), which, amongst other matters, seek high-quality development that responds sensitively to its context and preserves local character.

The outbuilding has a floor space of approximately [address] metres, and is subdivided into a home office, a gymnasium and a shower room. It is not in dispute that a home office and a gym can be uses that are incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling.

The SPD expects outbuildings to be used in a manner incidental to the main house and states that proposals involving, or with the potential for, independent residential units will be resisted. It also explicitly states that bathrooms are considered to be primary living accommodation and would not normally be supported.

The appellant has provided evidence that the outbuilding is used by occupiers of the host dwelling for home working and exercise, with the shower room intended for use after exercising. From my site visit and the submitted plans, the additional floorspace provided is modest in relation to the host dwelling. There is no kitchen or bedroom to support independent living. Although there is a side access to the rear garden, there is no independent access to the outbuilding.

Having considered its scale and the functional and physical connection with the host dwelling, there is no substantive evidence before me that the outbuilding is, or would become, primary living accommodation or other uses contrary to the SPD. In this context, and as a matter of fact and degree, the presence of a shower room would not facilitate inappropriate or incompatible activities within a private residential garden that would cause unacceptable disturbance to neighbouring occupiers.

I therefore conclude that the development does not harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers with regard to disturbance. It complies with LP Policy SC7, which, amongst other matters, requires all extensions and alterations of residential properties not to result in harm to the amenity of neighbouring residents.

In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the tests within the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance and relevant statute. As the development has already taken place, a condition relating to the time limit for implementation is not necessary. Nevertheless, in the interest of certainty, I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans for identification purposes.

In line with LP Policy SC7 and the SPD, the Council has suggested a condition to ensure that the development remains in use solely for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwelling. However, this condition would not be necessary as I am satisfied that the description of the development is consistent with the proposal, and there is no proposal before me for a separate dwelling, a bedroom, a kitchen, or any other uses.

For the reasons given above, the proposal accords with the development plan when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.