Appeal 6006649

The appeal is dismissed.

There are two main issues. Firstly, the effect of the proposed outbuilding on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area; and secondly, the effect on the living conditions of occupiers of 15 and [address].

[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) to the ground floor of some 55.7m2. To the rear is a grassed garden of some 69m2. In addition, there is a paved area to the front of the building providing space for access and vehicle parking. It also provides access to the adjoining dwelling, No 16A.

The outbuilding the subject of this appeal has been built and occupies the area to the side and part of the rear of the dwelling. It is visible from [address], between the dwelling and the boundary wall with Nos 15 and 16. It is sited on the shared boundary and extends to the rear boundary of the site. It is very close to the side elevation of the host dwelling, with noticeably less than 1m between the two. Its front elevation is set back from the front elevation of the bungalow. The Appeal Decision Ref 6006649 outbuilding has a gross internal floor area (GIA) of some 32m2 and a height of about 2.7m. It has a flat roof.

At the time of my site visit the building was unoccupied. Various items, including furniture, were being stored in the building. Although the evidence suggests that the building was constructed with an intention of creating a habitable unit of accommodation, the current application/appeal is for ancillary uses, specifically storage, connected with the host dwelling. The Council raises no concerns regarding the proposed use and so the only main issues before me are as set out above.

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 and would appear cramped on the plot.

Although the outbuilding is clearly smaller than the host dwelling, its GIA would be over half the ground floor GIA of the bungalow, and its depth would be greater. It would also have relatively high eaves, similar to those of the bungalow. It would thus amount to a significant increase in the amount of built development on the modest plot. In this case I therefore find that, notwithstanding the overall lower height and smaller footprint, these would be insufficient to achieve a satisfactory degree of subservience given the constrained plot and siting of the outbuilding in very close proximity to the dwelling.

Moreover, the location of the outbuilding, squeezed between the side elevation of the dwelling and the side boundary of the site, and visible from [address] where the street scene is relatively spacious, would result in a cramped and incongruous appearance. Although the remaining rear garden would, in my view, be adequate to serve the dwelling, the lack of space to the side of the dwelling and the dual use of the frontage for both parking and access to 16A would, overall, result in the proposed building amounting to an overdevelopment of the plot. I therefore find that the outbuilding would, in terms of siting and scale, result in a poor form of development that would conflict with the guidance in the SPD.

The outbuilding backs onto Heston Park. It is noticeably higher than the rear boundary wall and would be clearly visible from the park. Whilst the effect on the park would be modest, it would nevertheless add to the incongruous and detrimental effect of the building in the proposed location.

It is concluded on the first main issue that the proposed outbuilding would have a materially detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area. In consequence, it would conflict 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. In particular, 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. Appeal Decision Ref 6006649

Turning to the living conditions of neighbours, the closest dwellings, Nos 15 and 16, are set noticeably forward of the appeal dwelling and the proposed outbuilding. Moreover, although the outbuilding would be built along the shared boundary, the neighbouring dwellings are well separated from that boundary. The outbuilding would thus lie some distance behind and be clearly separated from the dwellings. Although it would extend along almost 10m of the shared boundary and project above it, this would be the section furthest from Nos 15 and 16. In consequence, the outbuilding would not cause any material loss of outlook or sense of enclosure for occupiers. Moreover, there is vegetation in the adjoining garden close to the boundary wall which would provide some screening of the side of the building.

It is concluded on the second main issue that the proposed outbuilding would have no materially harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of 15 and [address]. In consequence, it would comply with [name] CC1, CC2 and CS7 insofar as they expect new development to minimise harm to neighbouring residents, including through loss of outlook or an unacceptable sense of enclosure.

Notwithstanding my findings with regard to living conditions, this would not alter or outweigh my conclusions relating to the effect on character and appearance. Therefore, for the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.