Outbuilding

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 March 2026 by Victor Callister BA(Hons) PGC(Oxon) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004789 69 Abbey Avenue, Wembley, Brent HA0 1LJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Chris Sawden against the decision of the London Borough of Brent Council. • The application Ref is 25/2693. • The development is the erection of an outbuilding . Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. This appeal relates to development that has already been carried out. As the application is retrospective, I have considered the submission accordingly. Main Issues 3. The main issues are: • The effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and that of the local area; and • Whether the proposal constitutes ancillary accommodation Reasons 4. The host dwelling is an end of terrace two storey house, located in a street predominantly made up of short terraces of similar houses, which define the character of the street and local area. To the front is a paved front garden with a wall and metal fence boundary. To the side is a driveway that provides access to a detached garage to the rear of the house and allows access to the rear garden via a secured gate without going through the house. 5. The development that is the subject of the appeal is located to the back of the rear garden of the main dwelling on the appeal site. A certificate of lawfulness (CoL) was granted for an outbuilding in the rear garden of the host dwelling in 20221. The proposed outbuilding in that instance benefited from permitted development rights 1 Planning Ref: 22/3157 Appeal Decision 6004789 2 under the provisions of the GPDO2, however, the proposed outbuilding that was the subject of this CoL is not that constructed. 6. The development as built was the subject of a planning application3 that was previously refused. The appellant resubmitted a planning application with a planning statement, seeking to address the reasons for its refusal and it is this refused application that forms the basis of this appeal. 7. The outbuilding that is the subject of this appeal has a significantly greater footprint, height and design than the proposal for which a CoL was issued. The Council’s adopted Residential Extension and Alteration Supplementary Planning Guidance (the REASPD) advises that outbuildings should be no greater than 30m2 if the rear garden is larger than 100 square metres. In this case the outbuilding as constructed is approximately 54.8 square metres. As such, the proposal does not accord with the guidance set out in the REASPD for such developments. However, I note that the flat roofed outbuilding for which a CoL was issued was proposed to have a footprint of approximately 41.5 square metres, but with a terminal height of approximately 2.5 metres and further note that the guidance in the REASPD should be applied with regard to individual circumstances. 8. The outbuilding as constructed is brick, with a tiled roof in hipped roof form with side and front gables, resulting in a height of approximately 3.85 metres. As the appeal development is constructed across the full width of the rear garden, it results in it not only being readily visible from the rear of neighbouring houses, but also readily visible in views from the street through the wide gap between the appeal dwelling and the neighbouring end of terrace house at 71 Abbey Avenue. In these views, due to the extent, scale and height of the outbuilding as constructed, it appears as a detached bungalow type of development and as a separate and standalone dwelling, rather than as a subordinate outbuilding in the rear garden of the host dwelling. 9. As such, due to its scale across the width of the garden, height and design, the appeal development appears as incongruous within the context of the host dwelling, its neighbouring terraced houses and the wider streetscene and character of the local area and as a dominating presence within the context or its rear garden setting . 10. The appellant has brought to my attention outbuildings in neighbouring gardens but has proved only limited planning background. From my site visit it was apparent that these vary in age, footprint and orientation from each other and vary significantly from the hipped roof design of the appeal development, with generally flat roofs approximately 2.5 metres in height. These would have been considered on their own merits, where there is a planning approval background. As such, I do not find that these present exemplars for the appeal development 11. The appellant has brought to my attention that an outbuilding could be constructed with the same footprint as the appeal development, but that would be constructed longitudinally within the garden and 2 metres from the boundaries of neighbouring properties and with a terminal height to a pitched roof of 4 metres. This would 2 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 3 Planning Ref: 25/1699 Appeal Decision 6004789 3 however be significantly different in orientation and form to the appeal development. 12. Rather, the potential permitted development alternative identified by the appellant would appear as a relatively large outbuilding in the rear garden of the host dwelling that would be positioned with its narrow side facing towards the rear of the host dwelling and well away from neighbouring boundaries. As such, I do not consider that the ability to carry out such a development under the provisions of the GDPO provides justification for the appeal development, as it would not result in the same visual weight, presence or bungalow appearance as the appeal development. As such, I have only afforded this permitted development alternative limited weight in my considerations. Whether the proposal constitutes ancillary accommodation 13. From my site visit it was evident that there are no beds in the appeal development, however, it was also evident that there are full kitchen facilities in the area marked on the submitted plans as a utility pantry, including facilities for cooking. There are also bathroom facilities provided. As such and given the size of the scale of the development and extent of the kitchen and bathroom facilities provided, it is able to provide all the accommodation and facilities for stand-alone living accommodation with no reliance in terms of day to day use and management of the host dwelling or its facilities. I note that there is a secured side access gate that provides independent access through the rear garden to the appeal development without the need to access the appeal development through the host dwelling. 14. For these reasons, I find that the appeal development does not form ancillary accommodation to the host dwelling, but rather it presents and functions as a stand-alone residential dwelling. 15. I note that the appellant is of the view that although the REASPD advises that justification of need should be provided by applicants for ancillary accommodation, that it is not for the proposer to justify why they want additional ancillary accommodation. The REASPD does constitute guidance for development of the type that is the subject of this appeal and should be applied with consideration of circumstances and planning policy development. However, in this instance the appellants justification, or lack of it, for additional ancillary accommodation does not have any significant effect on my finding that the appeal development forms a separate residential development and not ancillary accommodation. 16. For these reasons, I find that the appeal development results in moderate harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and that of the local area and does not constitute a subordinate residential annexe, but results in a stand-alone dwelling. This does not accord with policies DMP 1 and BH12 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041 (2022), which collectively, amongst other matters, seek development that is of high quality design that complements the locality and that outbuildings will not be residential accommodation. 17. Whilst the application is for ancillary residential accommodation, I have found, for the reasons given, that the appeal development appears and functions as a standalone dwelling that results in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and that of the local area. The addition of a condition requiring the development to only be used for residential purposes ancillary to the main dwelling Appeal Decision 6004789 4 on the appeal site would not, therefore, make an otherwise unacceptable development acceptable. This would not accord with the requirement for conditions set put in paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024). Conclusion 18. The appeal is dismissed Victor Callister INSPECTOR