Appeal Decision 3250404 (Spelthorne Borough Council) — 2021-01-20

Appeal Decision 3250404 (Spelthorne Borough Council) — 2021-01-20
Outcome: Split decision
Case type: Lawful Development Certificate
Development: Householder developments
Appeal type: Written Representations
Location: 10 Park Road, ASHFORD, TW15 1EY
Postcode: TW15 1EY
LPA: Spelthorne Borough Council
LPA code: E07000213
PINS reference: 3250404

=== FULL INSPECTOR DECISION ===

Appeal Decisions
Site visit made on 12 January 2021
by D Hartley BA (Hons) MTP MBA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 20th January 2021

Appeal A: APP/Z3635/X/20/3250404
10 Park Road, Ashford TW15 1EY
•
•
•
•
•

The appeal is made under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as
amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 against a refusal to grant a
certificate of lawful use or development (LDC).
The appeal is made by Mr Gabby Dillon against the decision of Spelthorne Borough
Council.
The application Ref 19/01444/CLD, dated 21 October 2019, was refused by notice dated
18 December 2019.
The application was made under section 191(1)(a) and 191(1)(b) of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.
The use and development for which a certificate of lawful use or development is sought
is described as the lawful building operation and use of the original parts of the
outbuilding for established ancillary use and the lawful building operation and incidental
use of the extension to the outbuilding.

Appeal B: APP/Z3635/W/20/3250410
10 Park Road, Ashford TW15 1EY
•
•
•
•

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the
Act) against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mr Gabby Dillon against the decision of Spelthorne Borough
Council.
The application Ref 19/01595/FUL, dated 22 November 2019, was refused by notice
dated 16 January 2020.
The development proposed is the conversion of the existing annexe building at 10 Park
Road to form a C3 (single residential dwelling) unit with ancillary garden amenity space,
refuse and recycling and cycle store.

Decisions
Appeal A: Appeal A: APP/Z3635/X/20/3250404
1. The appeal is dismissed in respect of the extension to the original L shaped
outbuilding in so far that it is not permitted development by virtue of the
permitted development requirements of Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order
2015 (as amended). The appeal is allowed in respect of the lawful building
operation and use of the original part of the L shaped outbuilding for an
established use ancillary to the primary use of No 10 Park Road, Ashford, TW15
1EY as a dwelling house, and attached to this decision is a certificate of lawful
use or development describing the existing use and building operation which is
considered to be lawful.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decisions APP/Z3635/X/20/3250404, APP/Z3635/W/20/3250410

Appeal B: APP/Z3635/W/20/3250410
2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the conversion of
the existing annexe building at 10 Park Road, Ashford TW15 1EY to form a C3
(single residential dwelling) unit with ancillary garden amenity space, refuse
and recycling and cycle store, in accordance with the terms of the application
Ref 19/01595/FUL, dated 22 November 2019, subject to the conditions set out
in the attached schedule.
Main Issues
Appeal A: APP/Z3635/X/20/3250404
3. By way of background, there is no dispute between the parties that the appeal
outbuilding to the rear of No 10 Park Road, Ashford has been constructed in
phases. The appellant claims that an outbuilding was erected in April 1997 and
then extended in June 2003 (i.e. the ‘original’ L shaped outbuilding) and that it
was used for the storage of garden tools, small tools and other items of tools
used for the appellant’s work in the building trade, i.e. an incidental use not
requiring planning permission. Then in 2014 the appellant says that the
outbuilding was changed such that it included a kitchenette, shower room, two
sofas and a desk, i.e. an ancillary use not requiring planning permission.
4. Finally, the appellant says that in March 2018 a pitched roofed extension was
added to the L shaped ‘original’ outbuilding for the purpose of being used as a
games room which it is claimed was permitted development by virtue of Class
E of Schedule 2 of Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) from both a size
and incidental use point of view.
5. In the context of the above, the main issue is whether the Council’s refusal to
issue a certificate of lawfulness was well-founded. That turns on whether the
appellant can demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that a lawful
building operation and use of the “original” parts of the outbuilding for an
established ancillary has taken place and that a lawful building operation and
incidental use of an extension to the building has taken place.
Appeal B: APP/Z3635/W/20/3250410
6. The main issue is the effect of the development on (i) the character and
appearance of the area and (ii) the living conditions of future occupants in
respect of outlook.
Reasons
Appeal A: APP/Z3635/X/20/3250404
7. In order for an LDC to be granted under section 191 of the 1990 Act, the
burden of proving relevant facts in this appeal rests on the appellant, and the
test of the evidence is the balance of probability. The planning merits of the
use being sought are not before me.
8. Paragraph 006 of the Lawful Development Certificates section of the National
Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) advises in the case of applications for
existing use, if a local planning authority has no evidence itself, nor any from
others, to contradict or otherwise make the applicant’s version of events less
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

2

Appeal Decisions APP/Z3635/X/20/3250404, APP/Z3635/W/20/3250410

than probable, there is no good reason to refuse the application, provided the
applicant’s evidence alone is sufficiently precise and unambiguous to justify the
grant of a certificate on the balance of probability.
Original L shaped outbuilding
9. I have no reason to disagree with the main parties that the ‘original’ L shaped
building was permitted development in terms of its size. Whilst there are no
photographs to corroborate the appellant’s claim that such a building was
originally used for the storage of garden tools, small tools and other items of
tools used for the appellant’s work in the building trade, this is perhaps not
surprising given that this was quite some time ago.
10. I afford weight to the statutory declaration signed by the appellant where he
refers to the history of the use of the original L shaped building. The
Government’s Technical Guidance: Permitted Development Rights for
Householders 2019 (Householder Technical Guidance) states that “a purpose
incidental to a house would not, however, cover normal residential uses, such
as separate self-contained accommodation or the use of an outbuilding for
primary living accommodation such as a bedroom, bathroom, or kitchen”. In
this regard, I consider that on the balance of probability, the original building
was used for an incidental purpose. Owing to this, coupled with its overall size,
the development at this time complied with permitted development
requirements and hence did not need planning permission.
11. In reaching the above view, I also afford weight to the letter, dated 13
February 2020, from the Council’s Area Building Surveyor to the appellant
where he states that during the inspection of the work (i.e. 2008) “the
outbuilding to the rear of the property at the time of my inspection was used as
an office and storage for building materials and tools”. This does, at the very
least, support the appellant’s claim that the original building was used for the
storage of tools and that the additional inclusion of an office, even if part of the
first use of the L shaped building, did not take it out of an incidental use.
12. The appellant’s signed statutory declaration states that in September 2014 “I
inserted a small kitchenette and shower room within the outbuilding for
ancillary purposes connected with the use of the property”. I acknowledge that
there are no dated photographs relating to these internal changes.
Nevertheless, I have established that the original L shaped building was
originally used for an incidental purpose. It was therefore permitted
development at that time and hence lawful. As part of my site visit, I was able
to see the kitchenette and shower room in the building.
13. I do consider that the building has subsequently been used for an “ancillary”
use, although in saying this I would add that Section 55(2) (d) of the Act
actually refers to “the use of any buildings or other land within the curtilage of
a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the
dwellinghouse as such” is not development. It is my experience that the words
incidental and ancillary are often used interchangeably by practitioners in this
context. However, and for the avoidance of doubt, I am satisfied that the
original L shaped building was subsequently put to an ‘incidental’ use without
the need for planning permission.
14. On the balance of probability, I conclude that the evidence is sufficiently
precise and unambiguous to demonstrate that in September 2014 the L shaped
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

3

Appeal Decisions APP/Z3635/X/20/3250404, APP/Z3635/W/20/3250410

original building was used for an ancillary use (technically an incidental use
with reference to the Act) in connection with No 10 Park Road. Having regard
to Section 55(2) of the Act, the change to an ‘incidental’ use (or as referred to
by the appellant an ‘ancillary’ use) did not amount to a material change of use
requiring planning permission.
Extension to the original L shaped outbuilding
15. There is no dispute between the main parties that the original L shaped
building was extended in March 2018 and that in terms of its size it complies
with the permitted development right requirements of Class E of the GPDO.
The extension has a pitched roof and part of the external wall of the original L
shaped building is retained and is internally visible from the extension.
However, the appellant has confirmed that the original external wall to the
living room area was removed as part of the extension and I was able to view
this opening as part of my site visit. To this extent, I consider that the
extension is seen as being part and parcel of one building: the circulation space
between the extension and the living room is open.
16. Class E of the GPDO states that permitted development is “the provision within
the curtilage of the dwellinghouse of— (a) any building or enclosure, swimming
or other pool required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the
dwellinghouse as such, or the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of
such a building or enclosure”. On page 12 of the appellant’s Planning
Statement, he states that the extension was erected for an incidental purpose,
i.e. “the extension was and has been used as a games room thereby taking in
an incidental use to 10 Park Road”. However, on page 11 of the appellant’s
Planning Statement it states that in March 2018 the extension included an
upturned mattress, guitar and music paraphernalia, foosball table, sports
equipment and Halloween decorations.
17. In addition to the above, and whilst not supported by any photographs, the
Council says that a site visit showed that the game and lounge area contained
many pieces of furniture such as sofas, tables and a desk as well as other
belongings including a mattress.
18. I do not doubt that the extension did originally include foosball. Indeed, I was
able to see this as part of my site visit. However, the foosball takes up a very
small proportion of the overall floorspace of the extension. The evidence is not
therefore sufficiently precise or unambiguous to demonstrate that the
extension was originally built with the purpose of being used solely as a games
room. In fact, the evidence casts sufficient doubt about the appellant’s claim
about this matter. On the balance of probability, I consider that in this case
the extension was built for a purpose that was part and parcel of the ancillary
living accommodation associated with the original building. This view is
reinforced given that there is no physical separation between the living room
area and the extension.
19. Even if one were to disagree with my view above, it is of note that the
Householder Technical Guidance states that “a purpose incidental to a house
would not, however, cover normal residential uses such as….”. The list of
example residential uses is not a closed list. I consider that storing decorations
or the storage and/or use of a guitar/music paraphernalia would be incidental
uses. However, whilst I acknowledge the appellant’s claim that when the
Council visited the extension the mattress in the extended outbuilding did not
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

4

Appeal Decisions APP/Z3635/X/20/3250404, APP/Z3635/W/20/3250410

include bed sheets and was ‘being stored’, I have not actually been provided
with sufficient reason as to the specific circumstances which led to the mattress
being allegedly ‘stored’ in the extension. In other words, it is not clear where
and how the mattress would be used following a period of alleged storage. In
the absence of any persuasive argument relating to the circumstances relating
to the alleged storage of the mattress, there remains a possibility that it has
been used for the purpose of sleeping in the extension.
20. Bearing in mind that the onus rests with the appellant to demonstrate his case,
the evidence before me is not sufficiently precise or unambiguous in so far as
demonstrating that the extension was not built with the purpose of being used,
at least in part, for primary living accommodation purposes, either in respect of
sleeping quarters and/or extended living accommodation as part and parcel of
the original ancillary building. I therefore conclude, on the balance of
probability, that the extension was not built for an incidental purpose and
therefore it was not permitted development by virtue of Class E of the GPDO.
Appeal B: APP/Z3635/W/20/3250410
Housing land supply and Background
21. There is no dispute between the parties that the local planning authority cannot
demonstrate a deliverable five year supply of housing sites. Indeed, the
Council has confirmed that it can demonstrate a 4.4 years supply. In this
context, paragraph 11d of the National Planning Policy Framework (the
Framework) is engaged and therefore planning permission should be granted
unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework
taken as a whole.
22. The evidence before me indicates that planning permission was approved on 18
June 20201 for the retention of the existing outbuilding on the site. This is
subject to a condition which states “that the outbuilding hereby permitted be
used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse and not for
any primary living accommodation”. Whilst the latter condition is currently the
subject of a separate appeal2, the existence of the planning permission is
material planning consideration to which I afford significant weight in the
overall planning balance.
Character and appearance
23. The appeal site falls within a predominantly residential area and where there is
a mix of house types. On Park Road, most of the dwellings are two storey and
in Burleigh Gardens the properties are mainly bungalows. The vast majority of
properties in the area are positioned within reasonably sized plots giving the
area a pleasing spacious character. To the north of the site is an access road
serving a garage colony and what appears to be disused land to the rear of 612 Park Road.
24. The appeal building is positioned at the bottom of the rear garden of No 10
Park Road. The garden is longer than others in the area and consequently I do
not consider that the resultant garden for No 10 Park Road would look out of
place or cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Indeed, in
1
2

Planning permission Ref No 20/00457/HOU
Appeal Ref No APP/Z3635/W/20/3259643

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

5

Appeal Decisions APP/Z3635/X/20/3250404, APP/Z3635/W/20/3250410

terms of its resultant length/size, it would not be materially different to those
at No’s 6, 6a and 8 Park Road.
25. I accept that the proposed garden area for the appeal dwelling would be
smaller than others in the area. However, owing to its position away from any
significant public views, this in itself would not have the effect of causing any
significant harm to the character and appearance of the area.
26. I am satisfied that the garden area for the proposed one bedroom dwelling
would be both proportionate in size and acceptable in living conditions terms.
Indeed, this is not a matter that is disputed by the Council who say that the
site plan shows a private amenity space to the front of the building with an
area of 37 square metres that would meet the Council’s minimum requirement
for one bedroomed dwellings as outlined in the ‘Design of Residential
Extensions and New Residential Development’ Supplementary Planning
Document 2011 (Design SPD).
27. In this case, the removal of specified permitted development rights from the
appeal dwelling/garden would seek to ensure that a sense of spaciousness
continues to exist to the rear of No 10 Park Road, thereby protecting the
overall character and appearance of this immediate area. Subject to the
imposition of such planning conditions, I am satisfied that the development
would not appear cramped in its surrounding context.
28. I acknowledge that the appeal dwelling would not look the same as those on
Park Road. However, the building already exists and has the appearance of a
small dwelling. Furthermore, planning permission has been sought and
granted to retain the building in its current form. This appeal proposal seeks to
make only very minor and acceptable external alterations to the approved
building including additional windows in some of the elevations and the
repositioning of roof lights in the existing roof. In terms of the scale, shape
and footprint of the building, the appeal proposal would make no changes and
hence it would continue to appear subordinate in scale to the host dwelling on
the site. Whilst some changes are proposed internally, this in itself would harm
the character and appearance of the area.
29. In the context of the above, and subject to a condition removing permitted
development rights, I do not consider that the proposal, including the
pedestrian access to the side of No 10 Park Road, would represent a marked
change to the character and appearance of the area. In this regard, I do not
agree with the Council’s view that the owing to the ‘back land’ location of the
building unacceptable harm would be caused to the prevailing pattern of
development in the locality. The Council refer to views of the development
from adjoining properties, including those to the east, but the existing building
can already be seen from these areas and it has planning permission.
30. In the context of the recent planning permission for the appeal building, and
subject to the imposition of planning conditions, I therefore conclude that the
proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.
Therefore, it would accord with the design requirements of Chapter 12 of the
Framework; policy EN1 of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies
Development Plan Document 2009 (CS) and the Design SPD.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

6

Appeal Decisions APP/Z3635/X/20/3250404, APP/Z3635/W/20/3250410

Living conditions
31. I acknowledge that the proposed living/dining room windows on the north
facing elevation and the kitchen window on the south facing elevation would be
in close proximity to the boundaries of the site. In respect of the latter
window, it would also face the rear outbuilding belonging to the neighbouring
property. In these respects, the outlook for occupiers of the dwelling from
these windows would not be ideal.
32. Notwithstanding the above, it is of note that the proposed galley kitchen would
be part and parcel of the overall open plan circulation space relating to the
living/dining room area where there is open outlook afforded by the window on
the front elevation facing the proposed garden. In this regard, I am satisfied
that whilst there would not be an open outlook from the galley kitchen window,
this would not in itself be fatal in terms of the determination of this appeal. I
would also add that there would be a reasonable level of natural light
penetration into this part of the building.
33. In respect of the aforementioned living/dining room windows, these would be a
secondary. There would be windows on the elevation facing the proposed
garden area and these would ensure acceptable levels of light and outlook for
occupants of the living/dining room.
34. I conclude that even accounting for an approximately six metre long proposed
garden, and any controlled boundary treatment between the resultant host
property and the appeal building, overall the occupiers of the dwelling would be
able to enjoy a reasonable open outlook from the appeal building when
positioned in most parts of the open plan and separate bedroom habitable
room accommodation.
35. The Council has raised concern about the possibility of permitted development
rights being exercised in respect of the neighbouring garage colony site. There
is no evidence before me to indicate that the garage colony site has any such
permitted development rights and, in any event, it has been necessary for me
to reach a decision based on the circumstances that exist now and not on a
possible hypothetical situation which has not been reasonably justified.
36. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not cause harm to the living
conditions of the occupiers of the proposed dwelling in terms of outlook or
indeed any other living conditions matters. Consequently, the proposal would
accord with the amenity requirements of paragraph 127(f) of the Framework;
policy EN1 of the CS and the Design SPD.
Other Considerations
37. The proposed development does not include any on-site car parking for the
appeal dwelling. Whilst this does not form the basis of the Council’s refusal
notice, this issue is nonetheless raised in the Council’s delegated officer report
where it says that for a one bedroom dwelling there should be a ‘minimum’ of
1.25 car parking spaces as per the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance
‘Parking Standards’ 2011 (Parking SPG). The Parking SPG supplements policy
CC3 of the CS. Given the above, the proposal therefore conflicts with policy
CC3 of the CS and the Parking PPG and this weighs against allowing the appeal.
However, and given that paragraph 11d of the Framework is engaged, I afford

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

7

Appeal Decisions APP/Z3635/X/20/3250404, APP/Z3635/W/20/3250410

the conflict with such a policy and the Parking SPG limited weight in the overall
planning balance.
38. In any event, it is of note that the site is in close proximity to good bus
services into nearby town centres and to employment facilities. Furthermore,
there is no evidence of any on-street car parking stress in the immediate
locality. Indeed, and acknowledging that my site visit was only a snap-shot in
time, I was able to see that there was some limited available on-street car
parking space on Park Road and that this road was not within a controlled
parking zone. Given these factors, I am satisfied that in this case the lack of
any specific on-site car parking space for the one bedroom dwelling, coupled
with the undisputed evidence about the availability of public transport provision
at the nearby Feltham Hill Road, leads me to find that there are material
considerations which outweigh the proposal’s technical conflict with policy CC3
of the CS and the PPG.
39. In response to a letter of objection from the occupiers of a property in Burleigh
Gardens about noise and disturbance, I would add that the proposed use would
be compatible with the surrounding residential area. The proposed garden
area would be away from properties on Burleigh Gardens and I do not
therefore consider that occupation of the one bedroom dwelling would give rise
to any significant noise or disturbance issues for any of the occupiers of
neighbouring properties.
40. In the context that the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a
deliverable five year supply of housing sites, there is no doubt that the
proposal would make a positive contribution in terms of boosting the supply of
houses in the area. In addition, there would be some associated economic
benefits arising out of additional spending in the local area and supporting
existing local facilities and services. These positive social and economic
benefits weigh in favour of allowing the appeal.
Conditions
41. The conditions set out in the accompanying schedule are based on those
suggested by the Council. Where necessary I have amended the wording of
the suggested conditions, in the interests of precision and clarity, and in order
to comply with advice in the Planning Practice Guidance.
42. Planning permission is granted subject to the standard three year time limit
condition. It is necessary that the development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the
interests of certainty. I have therefore imposed a condition to this effect.
43. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, to ensure that an
acceptably sized garden area is retained for the appeal dwelling, and to protect
the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties,
there is exceptional justification for the removal of permitted development
rights. I acknowledge, as outlined by the appellant, that owing to the position
and size of the appeal site and the dwelling, that some extensions or
alterations on the site may not meet permitted development right requirements
and hence planning permission would be required. However, that would not be
the case for all development including the insertion of new window openings or
the erection of a porch. I have therefore imposed the Council’s suggested

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

8

Appeal Decisions APP/Z3635/X/20/3250404, APP/Z3635/W/20/3250410

amended condition to ensure that there is control in place relating to this
matter.
44. In the interests of ensuring good design, it is necessary to impose a planning
condition relating to details of the proposed bin storage/recycling facilities.
45. In the interests of the living conditions of the occupiers of the proposed
dwelling, and the character and appearance of the area, it is necessary to
impose a planning condition relating to the erection of all boundary treatments
on the site. This would include the garden boundary between the appeal
building and No 10 Park Road.
46. The Council has suggested that it would be necessary to impose contaminated
land conditions. However, there is no reasonable evidence provided by the
Council to indicate that there is a risk of contaminants on the site.
Furthermore, the appellant comments that the “land upon which the
outbuilding is positioned is and always was residential garden land and has not
been used for any industrial purposes or any other activities that are likely to
lead to ground contamination”. This has not been disputed by the Council and
on the evidence that is before me, I do not therefore consider that the
impositions of contaminated land conditions would be necessary or justified.
Planning balance and conclusion
47. Whilst there would be some technical conflict with Policy CC3 of the CS and the
Council’s associated Parking SPG, I afford this matter only limited weight in the
overall planning balance given that paragraph 11d of the Framework is
engaged and owing to the fact that the evidence is such that the one bedroom
dwelling would unlikely result in any on-street car parking stress in the locality.
Furthermore, the evidence is such that the appeal site is in an accessible
location where there is access to public transport services and there is no
evidence that the proposal would lead to any unacceptable impacts on highway
safety. In this context, the proposal would accord with the accessibility and
highway safety requirements of Chapter 9 of the Framework.
48. I conclude that whilst there would be some technical conflict with Policy CC3 of
the CS and the Parking SPG, this would be significantly and demonstrably
outweighed by the above identified benefits of the proposal, when assessed
against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. In this regard, the
proposal would deliver a sustainable form of development. Furthermore, I
have found that subject to the imposition of planning conditions, the proposal
would not harm the character or appearance of the area, or indeed the living
conditions of occupiers of the appeal dwelling or neighbouring dwellings. In
these respects, the proposal would accord with the development plan for the
area.
Overall Conclusions
Appeal A: APP/Z3635/X/20/3250404
49. I conclude that the Council’s refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or
development for the extension to the original L shaped outbuilding was wellfounded and that in this regard the appeal should fail. I will exercise
accordingly the powers transferred to me in section 195(3) of the Act, as
amended.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

9

Appeal Decisions APP/Z3635/X/20/3250404, APP/Z3635/W/20/3250410

50. I conclude, on the evidence now available, that the Council’s refusal to grant a
certificate of lawful use or development in respect of the lawful building
operation and use of the original part of the L shaped outbuilding for an
established use ancillary to the primary use of No 10 Park Road, Ashford, TW15
1EY as a dwellinghouse was not well-founded and that in this regard the appeal
should succeed. I will therefore exercise the powers transferred to me under
section 195(2) of the 1990 Act as amended.
Appeal B: APP/Z3635/W/20/3250410
51. I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

D Hartley
INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

10

Lawful Development Certificate
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990: SECTION 191
(as amended by Section 10 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991)
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND)
ORDER 2015: ARTICLE 39

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that on 22 November 2019 the use and operations
described in the First Schedule hereto in respect of the land specified in the Second
Schedule hereto and cross-hatched in black on the plans attached to this
certificate, were lawful within the meaning of section 191(2) of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), for the following reason:
The original L shaped building when built did not exceed the permitted
development size requirements for buildings. It was originally built and used for
an incidental purpose. It was then internally altered and used to provide primary
living accommodation, thereby being used for a purpose incidental/ancillary to the
dwellinghouse use of No 10 Park Road. Hence, its use for an incidental/ancillary
purpose did not amount to a material change of use requiring planning permission
as per Section 55(2) of the Act. The original L shaped building can therefore be
lawfully used for incidental/ancillary residential purposes.
Signed
D Hartley
Inspector
Date 20th January 2021
Reference: APP/Z3635/X/20/3250404
First Schedule
The lawful building operation and use of the original part of the L shaped
outbuilding (annotated with the word “original” on the submitted floor, roof and
elevation plans) for an established use incidental/ancillary to the primary use of
No 10 Park Road, Ashford, TW15 1EY as a dwelling house.
Second Schedule
Land at 10 Park Road, Ashford TW15 1EY

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decisions APP/Z3635/X/20/3250404, APP/Z3635/W/20/3250410

NOTES
This certificate is issued solely for the purpose of Section 191 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
It certifies that the use /operations described in the First Schedule taking place on
the land specified in the Second Schedule were lawful, on the certified date and,
thus, were not liable to enforcement action, under section 172 of the 1990 Act, on
that date.
This certificate applies only to the extent of the use /operations described in the
First Schedule and to the land specified in the Second Schedule and identified on
the attached plan. Any use /operation which is materially different from that
described, or which relates to any other land, may result in a breach of planning
control which is liable to enforcement action by the local planning authority.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

12

Plans
These are the plans referred to in the Lawful Development Certificate dated:
by D Hartley BA(Hons), MTP, MBA, MRTPI
Land at: 10 Park Road, Ashford TW15 1EY
Reference: APP/Z3635/X/20/3250404

Scale: Do not scale

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decisions APP/Z3635/X/20/3250404, APP/Z3635/W/20/3250410

Appeal B: APP/Z3635/W/20/3250410
Schedule of Planning Conditions
1)The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from
the date of this decision.
2)The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans: Red edged 1:1250 site location plan drawing No CBL0718-154-L01; drawing No CBL-10PR-PS01 ‘Proposed Site Plan’; drawing No CBL10PR-P106 ‘Proposed South Elevation’; drawing No CBL-10PR-P105 ‘Proposed
North Elevation’; drawing No CBL-10PR-P104 ‘Proposed Rear Elevation’; drawing
No CBL-10PR-P103 ‘Proposed Front Elevation’ and drawing No CBL-10PR-P101
‘Proposed Ground Floor Plan’.
3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and reenacting that Order), no extensions shall be erected and no further openings
created to the development hereby permitted without the prior planning permission
of the Local Planning Authority.
4) Prior to the first occupation of the approved development, details of a scheme of
the means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary
treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the
building is occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details and maintained as approved.
5) Facilities within the curtilage of the site for the storage of refuse and recycling
materials shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The
agreed details shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the
development hereby approved and retained thereafter.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

14