For partial conversion of an existing garage to an ancillary and incidental use, to be used by the main household only

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 May 2018 by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/A5270/D/18/3198142 111 Rushdene Crescent, Northolt UB5 6NG  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 Maricela Elvira Nicu against the decision of the London Borough of Ealing Council.  The application Ref 180167HH, dated 13 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 9 March 2018.  The development proposed is for partial conversion of an existing garage to an ancillary and incidental use, to be used by the main household only. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for partial conversion of an existing garage to an ancillary and incidental use, to be used by the main household only at 111 Rushdene Crescent, Northolt UB5 6NG in accordance with the terms of the application Ref. 180167HH, dated 13 January 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1:1250 Site Location Plan, 1:500 Site Plan, A101, A102, A104, A105 and A106. 3. The conversion of the garage building hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as 111 Rushdene Crescent, Northolt UB5 6NG. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is situated within an established residential area with a Primary School behind. Within the rear garden of the appeal site is a detached garage building, the subject of this appeal, and which is accessed by a pair of double gates from Down Way, as well as from within the appeal site itself. Access between the subject building and its host are uninhibited, with the windows proposed to serve the additional bedroom to look straight towards the latter, Appeal Decision APP/A5270/D/18/3198142 2 including into the windows serving its kitchen/dining/living room and the intervening outdoor seating area. 4. The Council’s Officer report explains that the existing dwelling has been extended considerably such that now it has a footprint of 103sqm, it is also cited that the existing garage building has a footprint of approximately 60sqm. However, not all of this would be converted into habitable accommodation with a portion of the garage proposed to be retained for storage. It is not proposed to extend the building any greater than existing and the accommodation to be provided would comprises 1 no double bedroom with an ensuite bathroom to accommodate the appellant’s son and future wife, in addition to a space identified as a playroom. There are no facilities proposed to be provided that would render the building capable of independent day-to-day living with the appellant stating that cooking and eating would all take place within the host dwelling. Consequently I consider that by virtue of the scale of the building, and the level of living accommodation proposed that it would be ancillary to the use of no 111. 5. I acknowledge that the proposed bi-folding patio doors would face sideways rather than towards the main dwelling, but nonetheless, the playroom would also have a glazed door installed in the eastern elevation and provided that the use of the building remains as an annexe to no 111, I consider that the proposal would not result in an excessive provision of living accommodation beyond that reasonably considered ancillary and subordinate to the main dwelling. Further, by reason of it siting, scale and design I am not convinced that the proposed conversion of the garage would give it the appearance of a new residential unit within the rear curtilage. Moreover, it would continue to appear as a domestic outbuilding in keeping with its surroundings. 6. I therefore find that the proposal would protect the character and appearance of the area and would comply with Policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) and Policies 3.5 and 7.6 of the London Plan (2016) which overall require buildings and structures to comprise details and materials that complement, not necessary replicate, the local architectural character including building pattern, scale, materials and detailing, as well as ensuring that external treatments, fittings and materials complement the building and context, and not impair the visual amenity of surrounding uses. Conclusion and Conditions 7. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. 8. The Council has not suggested that any conditions be imposed, however, in addition to the standard time limit condition I consider that, in the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area that it is appropriate to require the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. Furthermore, in order to ensure that the use of the subject building remains in genuine ancillary use to no 111, I also consider it necessary to impose an occupational condition to this effect. C J Tivey INSPECTOR