®Planning appeal decision
42 Raynton Drive, HAYES, Middlesex, UB4 8BE
breach of condition for failure to comply with condition 4 of planning permission reference 73142/APP/2019/2068 dated 19 August 2019 (single storey outbuilding to rear for use as storage) (retrospective), requiring “the outbuilding hereby approved shall only be used for the purpose(s) stated on the application form and approved drawings and shall not be used for purposes such as a living room, bedroom, kitchen, study, as a separate unit of accommodation or for any business purposes” (“the breach”)
- Authority
- London Borough of Hillingdon
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Other minor developments
- Inspector
- Hawkins S
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Appeal A Ground (a): The effect of removing condition 4 to permit the use of the outbuilding as residential accommodation on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, having regard to noise and disturbance and outlook; and the effect on the living conditions of existing and future occupiers of the main dwelling, having regard to the provision made for outdoor amenity space
- Appeal A Ground (f): Whether the notice requirements are excessive
- Appeal B Ground (c): Whether the matter stated in the notice constitutes a breach of planning control
- Appeal B Ground (a): The effect of the shed on the living conditions of the existing and future occupiers of the dwelling, having regard to the provision made for suitable outdoor amenity space; and the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, having regard to outlook
What decided it
Appeal A: the substantial and harmful increase in noise and disturbance to neighbouring occupiers from residential use conflicted with development plan policies and outweighed personal circumstances; Appeal B: the shed caused no unacceptable harm to living conditions subject to removal of the canopy.
Appeal A: the harm to neighbouring occupiers' living conditions from noise and disturbance outweighed the personal circumstances of the occupier; Appeal B: the benefits of permitting the shed were not outweighed by harm to living conditions, subject to the canopy removal condition.
Plan policies cited: Policy DMH 6, Policy DMHD 2, Policy DMHB 18, Policy DMHB 11, Policy DMHD 1, Policy BE1
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.