Garage and workshop for personal use

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 March 2019 by R J Jackson BA MPhil DMS MRTPI MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 03 April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/F5540/D/19/3222998 19 Gainsborough Gardens, Isleworth TW7 7PE • 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 Mr Dan Chandegra against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow. • The application Ref 00469/19/P3, dated 24 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 15 February 2019. • The development proposed is garage and workshop for personal use. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for garage and workshop for personal use at 19 Gainsborough Gardens, Isleworth TW7 7PE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 00469/19/P3, dated 24 September 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan (1:1250); AH 730 01 Revision A; AH 730 02 Revision B; and AH 730 03 Revision B. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing house. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of 17 Gainsborough Gardens in terms of outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached two storey dwellinghouse which has a full width single storey extension to the rear. It is set at the end of a cul-de-sac with an area of open space to the west. Beside the dwelling is an accessway to Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/19/3222998 2 an area of allotments. This access is lit and there is a single storey pitched roof building on the edge of the allotment area a short distance to the northwest. 4. Currently within the garden area of the appeal property is a single, detached garage building with a timber shed next to it. The garden extends to a point at its northwestern extent. 5. The proposal is to construct a single storey pitched roof building towards the northwestern part of the garden. While it would abut part of the northern boundary there would be gaps beyond it to the “point” in the northwestern corner and to the northeast with a gap of 1.3 m to the fence on the boundary with the adjoining property, No 17. 6. The area generally is a residential area. A significant number of dwellings in the area have outbuildings or garages. These are generally single storey and have flat roofs and are set back from the houses fronting Gainsborough Gardens and are glimpsed through the gaps between the pairs of semi-detached dwellings. In this regard the existing garage at No 19 is in keeping with the character of the area although it can be more clearly seen from the open space. 7. The Council has referred to its Residential Extension Guidelines (the Guidelines). As this is in accordance with Policy SC7 of the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015 – 2030 (the Local Plan), which seeks to support the extension and improvement of residential properties including outbuildings to maintain the character of an area and not to harm the amenity of neighbouring residents, I am able to give the Guidelines significant weight. 8. The Council accepts that in dimension terms the proposal is in accordance with the Guidelines but it objects to the size of the proposed building and in particular its height with its pitched roof. The Council makes the point that a lower ridge height might be feasible, but I do not think that is a good point as what should initially be considered is whether the proposal is acceptable or causes any harm, not whether any alternative is available. 9. In that regard the height of the proposed building would be lower than the building further along the accessway on the allotments which also has a pitched roof. While taller than the other garages it would not be significantly so and its overall size and scale would not harm the character or appearance of the area and it would successfully address the accessway. In appearance it would appear subservient to the main house. 10. As such the proposal would comply with both Policy SC7 of the Local Plan and the Guidelines as set out above and would also comply with its intent. It would also comply with paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which indicates that developments should be sympathetic to local character. Living conditions 11. At the site visit I saw that the boundary fence between the appeal property and No 17 was made up of an approximately 1.2 m high close boarded fence. The outlook from the ground floor windows of No 17 down and across the appeal site is already obstructed to a greater extent by the single storey extension on the appeal property; from the first floor this does not occur. However, the main outlook of the occupiers of No 17 is down their own garden and not across that Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/19/3222998 3 of their neighbours. Given this and the distance from the rear elevation to the proposal, the proposal would not harmfully result in a loss of outlook. 12. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 17 Gainsborough Gardens in terms of outlook. Therefore, it would comply with Policy SC7 of the Local Plan and the Guidelines as set out above. It would also comply with paragraph 127 of the Framework which indicates that development should create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Conditions 13. I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council against the requirements of the national Planning Practice Guidance and the Framework. In addition to the standard timescale condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty. 14. I have also imposed a condition requiring the building to be finished in materials matching to the main house in order to protect the character and appearance of the area. 15. The Council requested two additional conditions. The first would prevent the building being use as a single family house or dwelling, as a business or a kitchen or bedroom being installed. The use as a separate dwelling or for business purposes beyond that ancillary to the dwelling would need planning permission so a condition is not necessary. As to the kitchen/bedroom the reason for the suggested condition relates to any asserted effects on the character and appearance of the area. I consider from what I have seen that would be no different from the main issues in this appeal and for the same reasoning is not necessary. 16. The second suggested condition would prevent any additional windows or doors being installed, in the view of the Council, to prevent harm to living conditions. Given the separation of the proposed building to No 17 or any other neighbour I consider that any such doors or windows would not result in any unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy and consequently the condition is not necessary. 17. Where necessary and in the interests of clarity and precision I have altered the conditions to better reflect the relevant guidance. Conclusion 18. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. R J Jackson INSPECTOR