Appeal 6006648

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a detached outbuilding in the rear garden at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/3163, subject to the following conditions:

The internal layout of the building hereby permitted shall be altered to accord with the following approved plans: Site location plan, 128/PP/011b, 128/PP/011c, 128, PP/012e. The work shall be carried out within 3 months of the date of this planning permission.

The outbuilding hereby permitted shall not be used at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as [site address] .

There is one main issue, which is the effect of the proposed outbuilding on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area.

[address] is a short cul-de-sac of similar blocks of maisonettes, built to a traditional design. There are noticeable gaps between the blocks, and the layout is spacious given its urban setting. The cul-de-sac ends in a hammer head. A driveway between Nos 15/16 and 17/18 provides access to the appeal site and its adjoining neighbour which together comprise a pair of modest semi-detached bungalows.

The appeal dwelling has a pitched roof and rear dormer to provide accommodation at first floor. It has a gross internal floor area (GIA) at ground floor of some 64m2. To the rear is a grassed garden of some 72m2. In addition, there are paved areas to the front and side of the building, providing additional outside space, including for Appeal Decision Ref 6006648 access and vehicle parking. At the time of my site visit the area to the side was being used for the drying of washing. Permitted development rights for outbuildings were withdrawn at the time the bungalow and its semi-detached neighbour were permitted in 2014, as a conversion of an existing larger bungalow.

The outbuilding the subject of this appeal has been built and occupies the rear section of the area to the side of the dwelling and cannot be seen from [address]. It is sited close to the side and rear boundaries of the site which are marked by blockwork walls. Its front elevation is about level with the rear elevation of the bungalow and there is a noticeable gap at the pinch point between the two buildings. The outbuilding has a GIA of some 25.34m2 and a height of about 2.5m. It has a flat roof.

The outbuilding appears to have been built in 2016 and, according to the evidence, was initially used as a separate dwelling. It appears to be the subject of an extant enforcement notice, following a dismissed enforcement appeal in 2020. The evidence sets out that the appeal was on grounds (c); that no breach of planning control had occurred, and (d); that enforcement action had been taken too late. It did not, therefore, consider the planning merits of the building. At the time of my site visit the building was unoccupied and substantially empty. It had a small shower room with toilet (which are shown as being removed on the proposed plan ref. 128/PP/011c) but no kitchen facilities. It therefore appears that the enforcement notice has been partially complied with, but the requirement to demolish the building has not been met.

The current application/appeal seeks to regularise the building for uses ancillary to the main dwelling (storage). The Council raises no concerns regarding the proposed use and so the only main issue before me is the effect on character and appearance.

The Hounslow Character, Sustainability and [name], Part A5 [name] (SPD), 2024, sets out criteria for outbuildings, including in relation to scale and design. The Council is concerned that the outbuilding would not appear clearly subservient to the host dwelling. However, its GIA would be comfortably less than half that of the ground floor of the dwelling. This, coupled with its limited height compared with the pitched roof of the dwelling and its set back position would ensure a noticeable degree of subservience. Moreover, the clear separation from the bungalow, remaining 72m2 of garden plus the areas of hardstanding would prevent a cramped appearance. I also find that in terms of design the building would be acceptable. In particular, the roof style would be suitable for its setting, as required by the SPD.

The outbuilding would back onto Heston Park. It would be noticeably higher than the rear boundary wall. Nevertheless, there is an area of trees and shrubby vegetation in the park to the rear of the building which would limit its visibility. Its modest height would, in any case, not appear out of place in this part of the park, close to its edge and within view of other, larger buildings.

The appellant points out that, in the context of application ref. P/2025/0562 for the use of the same outbuilding for B8 uses, the Council commented in its delegated report that “the outbuilding, in terms of size, scale and position.......would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the application site and wider area”. I concur with that assessment. Moreover, there have been no material changes to Appeal Decision Ref 6006648 planning policy or guidance since that application was refused for reasons other than character and appearance on 25 June 2025.

It is concluded on the main issue that the proposed outbuilding would have no materially detrimental effect on the character or appearance of the appeal site or the surrounding area. In consequence, it would comply with Policies CC1, CC2 and SC7 of the Council’s Local Plan 2015-2030, adopted 2015. Taken together and amongst other things, these expect new development to achieve high quality urban design that responds to its context and local character and, in the case of residential additions, compliments and harmonises with the host building and surrounding area. Outbuildings should have regard to the quality, character, materials and scale of the principal building, be subordinate to the existing building, and not over develop the site in terms of mass and density.

Turning to conditions, since the development has commenced, a commencement condition is not necessary. However, the internal layout currently differs from that shown on the submitted plans and so a condition requiring compliance is necessary. A period of 3 months would be sufficient to undertake the limited work necessary. Finally, as suggested by the appellant and to ensure the future use of the building is limited to uses ancillary to the host dwelling, I will impose a suitable condition. This is necessary in order to protect the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area and the living conditions of existing and future occupiers at the appeal site and nearby.

The Heston Residents Association raised objections, including on the grounds that permitted development rights for outbuildings at the appeal site had previously been removed. However, this does not preclude an outbuilding being permitted under a separate planning permission, following an assessment of the planning merit of the case, as I have done.

The Council refers to an absence of a fire safety plan although this is not a reason for refusal. However, the appellant points out that the plan is included on plan ref. 128/PP/012e. This appears to be adequate in terms of the proposed outbuilding.

For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.