Conversion of existing outbuilding to an ensuite bedroom and a games room and change of internal bedroom and en-suite to office space and store

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 August 2026 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012561 43 Prescelly Place, Edgware, Harrow, HA8 6DH • 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 Emmanuel Akubue against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow. • The application Ref is PL/3042/25. • The development proposed is conversion of existing outbuilding to an ensuite bedroom and a games room and change of internal bedroom and en-suite to office space and store. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of existing outbuilding to an ensuite bedroom and a games room and change of internal bedroom and en-suite to office space and store at 43 Prescelly Place, Edgware, Harrow, HA8 6DH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PL/3042/25, 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 approved plans: Site Location Plan at scale 1:1250 and Drg Nos A103 ‘Elevations Existing’ and A103 ‘Proposed Existing’. 3) The converted outbuilding hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling at 43 Prescelly Place. Preliminary Matter 2. During the course of the appeal, the revised National Planning Policy Framework 2026 (the Framework 2026) was published. Both parties were invited to comment about the relevance of the Framework 2026 to their case. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effects of the proposed use of the outbuilding having specific regard to its occupancy. Reasons 4. The appeal relates to a single-storey outbuilding located at the foot of the garden to No 43, a two-storey semi-detached dwelling in use by up to six residents living Appeal Decision 6012561 2 together as a single household with care provided. The proposal is to alter the existing garage/store by dividing the space in two with an internal wall and creating two separate rooms, one to be used as an en-suite bedroom and the second as a games room. Each space would be accessed independent of each other direct from the property’s fairly shallow rear garden, with doors and windows facing back towards the rear elevation of the dwelling. 5. The Council has raised no issue with respect to the ancillary use of the games room but is concerned that the proposal would include a bedroom that would comprise primary living accommodation within a separate residential unit. However, I have been provided with no clear definition of ‘primary living accommodation’ or directed to any development plan policy which would assist. At the same time the Council acknowledges that the proposal would represent the adaption of an existing structure within the curtilage of No 43 without introducing a new or independent planning use and that the established residential character of the host property and surrounding area would be preserved. 6. The plans which accompanied the application show the one half of the divided floorspace within the outbuilding to be used as a bedroom with only an ensuite and nothing by way of kitchen or laundry facilities to facilitate independent day to day living. The appellant has confirmed that these functions would remain reliant upon those already provided within the main house. It is further explained that the bedroom space would be wheelchair accessible and intended specifically for a disabled service user who requires step free, accessible, and self-contained sleeping and sanitary facilities as part of the supported living provision at the property as a whole. The Council has provided no evidence to demonstrate that the space would in any way be uninhabitable as a bedroom. 7. The property’s rear garden space would be obviously shared, as would access to it, with the outbuilding being sited in proximity to the house with mutual and direct intervisibility between both buildings. Given this and based upon all the information presented to me, I am satisfied that the outbuilding would be used ancillary to the principal accommodation at No 43 and that there would be no likelihood of it being independently used, with both it and the host dwelling functioning together as a single planning unit. As such, it would not be out of keeping with the established residential character of the surrounding area. 8. Despite being referenced within their reason for refusal, I have not been directed to any conflict with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guide (2010). Moreover, I am unable to identify any conflict with Policy GR1 of the Harrow Local Plan (2021-2041) which seeks to secure a high standard of development that respects the character and context of the locality, safeguards the amenity of residents and which is accessible. Neither do I find conflict with Policy D3 parts D(7) and D(11) of The London Plan 2021 which relate to achieving appropriate levels of outlook, privacy and amenity, and respect for the quality and character of an area. For these same reasons there would be no conflict with the Framework 2026’s decision-making policies for achieving well-designed places. Other Matter 9. The Council has questioned the provision of an additional bedroom at the property and that as a consequence more than six residents would be living together as a single household. But that is not what is proposed. There is no suggestion by the Appeal Decision 6012561 3 Council that the provision of an office space and store within the dwelling would be unacceptable. Should occupancy of No 43 exceed the six residents threshold, or should the outbuilding not be used as proposed, then circumstances may arise where a separate grant of planning permission would be required for a material change of use, with subsequent risk of enforcement action if any such permission was not granted. Conditions 10. In addition to the standard time limit condition, a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. I further agree with the Council that a condition is necessary to control future use of the outbuilding for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of maintaining the character and appearance of the area. For reasons explained above, I see no reason to impose a condition restricting levels of occupancy within the premises as a whole, as has been suggested by the Council. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given, I am unable to identify any harm or conflict with the development plan or national planning policy. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. John D Allan INSPECTOR