Rear garden outbuilding with flat roof and a maximum eaves height of 2.5m and for use as an office, storage and gym space

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 July 2026 by Philip Willmer BSc Dip Arch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010130 291 Albert Drive, Sheerwater, Surrey, GU21 5TU. • 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 Mrs Shaida Khan against the decision of Woking Borough Council • The application Ref is PLAN/2026/0093 • The development proposed is described as rear garden outbuilding with flat roof and a maximum eaves height of 2.5m and for use as an office, storage and gym space. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a rear garden outbuilding with flat roof and a maximum eaves height of 2.5m and for use as an office, storage and gym space at 291 Albert Drive, Sheerwater, Surrey, GU21 5TU.in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PLAN/2026/0093, 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 materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved unnumbered drawings: Location and Block Plan scale 1:200 and 1:1250, Site Plan scale 1:100, Proposed Floor Plan scale 1:50 and Elevations scale 1:50. 4) The outbuilding hereby permitted shall not be used other than for purposes incidental to the dwelling known as 291 Albert Drive, Sheerwater, Woking Surrey, GU21 5TU. Main Issue 2. I consider the main issue to be weather the proposed outbuilding would be occupied as ancillary accommodation the main house. Reasons 3. The appeal property, 291 Albert Drive (No 291) is a two-storey semi-detached house. It has a deep, rectangular shaped and enclosed rear garden which backs on to the Basingstoke Canal. There is access to the rear of the property from the Appeal Decision 6010130 2 towpath that runs alongside the canal through a wooded area, separating the rear garden of No 291 and those of the neighbouring dwellings from the canal. 4. The appellant proposes a detached single storey garden building ancillary to the main dwelling house. It would be located towards the end of the rear garden furthest from the house. It would have an internal floor area of approximately 36 square metres and be subdivided into three separate rooms. The plans indicate that the largest room would be used as gym/office. In addition to a separate shower room/toilet a third room is noted to be for storage. 5. As I observed several neighbouring properties also have relatively large, detached garden outbuildings, set away from the rear of the houses. 6. The Council has raised no concerns in respect of design, character and appearance of the area, residential living conditions, transport, flood risk and drainage, or Biodiversity Net Gain. However, it is concerned given the proposed floor area of the structure and the potential for pedestrian access from the towpath to the proposed garden building, that it could be occupied other than as ancillary accommodation to the main house. It considers that if the structure was to be occupied other than as ancillary to the main house its occupation would be likely to conflict with the development plan as a whole. 7. Notwithstanding the Council’s concern about the possible occupation as an independent dwelling, the appellant has not sought permission for the use of the outbuilding as a self-contained annexe. The outbuilding would, as shown remain within the curtilage of the main dwelling, and as there is no kitchen facility those using the building would remain dependent upon the main dwelling for everyday living. 8. Further, from the Council’s evidence I see that the internal floor area of 36 square meters is 1 square meter less than that required to meet its standard for a single storey one-person, one bedroom dwelling. Accordingly, the building would not, as designed, meet the Council’s own design requirements and therefore would not be suitable for occupation as a self-contained dwelling. 9. I note there is a possible separate access from the towpath, but from my site visit I saw that this is over undulating ground, unmade paths and through the trees. I do not consider that this would provide an attractive or particularly practical point of access to the outbuilding for any potential residential occupier. On balance therefore I am not persuaded that if I were to allow the building a condition to close access from the towpath would be appropriate. 10. I appreciate that the building, like many other ancillary garden outbuildings has the potential to be occupied other than as ancillary accommodation to the main house. However, if a change of use occurred this would be contrary to any conditional planning permission granted and in addition subject to Building Regulation consent. In my experience, given the surrounding residential development, if the building were to be unlawfully occupied it would very quickly be drawn to the Council’s attention and appropriate enforcement action could be taken. Accordingly, I do not agree that a condition restricting the use of the outbuilding only to purposes incidental to No 91, thereby precluding occupation as an independent unit of accommodation, could not be enforced. Appeal Decision 6010130 3 11. On balance therefore I consider that there is no justification for concluding, based on the limited evidence to the contrary, that just because it might, that the building would be likely to be occupied unlawfully. Nevertheless, if I were to allow the appeal I would for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and neighbouring residential occupiers living conditions, condition the buildings future use for purposes incidental to the main dwelling house only. 12. For the reasons set out above I conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed outbuilding would, subject to condition be occupied as ancillary accommodation the main house. To allow it would therefore accord with the objectives of the ancillary accommodation element of Policy DM9 of the Woking Development Management Policies Development Plan Document DPD (Adopted October 2016) - Flats above shops and ancillary accommodation as they seek to allow only genuine facilities ancillary to the occupation of the main house or its curtilage. Conditions 13. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council in light of the advice in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. In the interests of precision and enforceability, I have amended the Council’s suggested wording where appropriate. 14. To protect the visual amenity of the host property, the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers I shall restrict the use of the outbuilding to purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house. 15. I shall include a condition about the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building, and in the interests of certainty, I will impose a condition requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans. Conclusions 16. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Philip Willmer INSPECTOR