Retention of outbuilding to be used as gym

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 January 2018 by R C Kirby BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9th February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/F5540/D/17/3185856 1 The Alders, Feltham TW13 6NU  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by BH Property Management Ltd against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow.  The application Ref 00022/1/P1, dated 6 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 14 September 2017.  The development proposed is described as the retention of outbuilding to be used as gym. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an outbuilding to be used as a gym at 1 The Alders, Feltham TW13 6NU in accordance with the terms of application Ref 00022/1/P1, dated 6 July 2017. Procedural Matter 2. Retention is not an act of development. I have considered the proposal as an outbuilding to be used as a gym. 3. The outbuilding has been constructed. It is located closer to the side access road than that indicated on the submitted block plan. The Council acknowledged that it had been incorrectly shown on the submitted drawings; however, it considered that it had sufficient information before it to determine the planning application. I have no reason to find differently in this regard. For the avoidance of doubt, I have considered the location and design of the outbuilding as it has been constructed. I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by me taking this approach. Main Issue 4. The main issue in this case is the effect of the use of the outbuilding on the living conditions of nearby occupiers. Reasons 5. The outbuilding is modest in size and located towards the bottom of the garden at No 1 The Alders. Nearby dwellings have a range of outbuildings and garages at the bottom of their gardens. In this regard the proposal would reflect the character and appearance of the area. This is not disputed. 6. The appellant proposes that the building would be used as a gym by occupiers of No 1. The property has been converted into a small house in multiple Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/17/3185856 2 occupation (HMO). It is proposed that the gym would have a treadmill, weights and an electric cycle. 7. The gym would be located some distance from the rear windows of the nearest property at No 3. It adjoins the rear garden of this property and is visible from its rear windows and rear garden. 8. Given the size of the gym and the limited amount of equipment that it could accommodate, it would be unlikely that it would be used by a large number of people at any one time. The comings and goings to and from the building would therefore be likely to be limited. Furthermore, given the nature of the activities that would be likely to take place within the building, I am not convinced that unacceptable levels of noise would be generated. Even if music was being played, it would be unlikely that this would disturb nearby occupiers because of the distance between the outbuilding and nearby dwellings. Accordingly, I consider that the likely level of use of the outbuilding would be unlikely to result in noise and disturbance to a degree that would cause harm to nearby occupiers’ living conditions. 9. The Council is also concerned about possible future use of the outbuilding. It is submitted that it could be used for ancillary residential purposes without the need for planning permission. Whilst noting this matter, I am not convinced that given my findings above that an alternative ancillary use of the outbuilding would result in harm to nearby occupiers’ living conditions. 10. Reference is also made to the outbuilding being used for further accommodation for the HMO. The Council has indicated in its report that the existing building consists of 6 bedrooms; the appellant has stated that it is occupied by 6 people. Planning permission would therefore be required for an additional person to occupy the premises, whether that be in the property itself, or within the outbuilding. Planning permission would also be likely to be required if the outbuilding was occupied as an independent dwelling, or the gym was open to the general public. The Council would therefore have a degree of control over the future use of the outbuilding. 11. In light of the above, I conclude that the outbuilding and its use as a gym would not result in harm to the living conditions of nearby occupiers. There would be no conflict with the amenity aims of Policy SC7 of the Local Plan 2015 – 2030, or the guidance on outbuildings within the Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines. In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to the planning history of the site, however I have determined the appeal proposal on its merits. Conditions 12. The Council has suggested a number of conditions that it would wish to see imposed in the event that the appeal is allowed. As the building has been constructed, it is not necessary to attach a condition requiring compliance with the approved drawings. Furthermore, given my findings above in respect of the possible future use of the outbuilding requiring planning permission, I consider that a condition requiring that its use remains ancillary to No 1 is not necessary. No planning conditions are therefore necessary in this case. Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/17/3185856 3 Conclusion 13. For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed. R C Kirby INSPECTOR