Office outbuilding at 1 High Road, Eastcote

What was proposed

An outbuilding was proposed in the rear garden to provide additional office space linked to the existing ground-floor office.

“The application proposes the erection of an outbuilding within the rear garden of the site, to serve as additional office space associated with the existing ground floor office use of the building (proposed drawings shown at Figure 6 and 7 below).”

“The proposed outbuilding would have an approximate maximum depth of 6m, maximum width of 8m, and maximum height of 3.4m. It would be set approximately 4.4m away from the main rear wall of the application property at its nearest point.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a semi-detached corner property with offices below, a home above, parking at the front and a rear garden in the conservation area.

“The building has offices on the ground floor with residential above and benefits from a rear garden of approximately 122 sqm, which is used solely by the offices. The existing building has a traditional shop frontage with a large picture window and is separated from the road by a parking area that services the existing offices.”

“The site falls within the Eastcote Village Conservation Area, however the building itself is not listed. There is a current Article 4 restriction in place which restricts Class MA conversion from Use Class E to Class C3 Residential units through permitted development. No other significant site constraints have been identified within the site curtilage. The below Figures further show the site context and location.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier outbuildings were approved for storage and ancillary office use, while the later office permission had commenced and remained extant.

“It is relevant to note that planning permission was previously granted in 2022 for the erection of an outbuilding within the rear garden, to provide ancillary office space for the main office building at 1 High Road (20101/APP/2021/4481). This permission was assessed (and approved) under current Local Plan policies.”

“Prior to this, planning permission was also granted in 2020 for a single storey outbuilding to the rear of the commercial unit for storage use (20101/APP/2020/3335). This permission expired in December 2023.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the proposal acceptable in design, residential amenity, parking, highway, tree and biodiversity terms, subject to conditions.

“The proposed outbuilding would be of a conventional and sympathetic design, finished in brick with a pitched tile roof. In principle these materials would be acceptable however to ensure a complementary appearance should be conditioned to match the existing host property. Provided this is the case, the roof design and material palette would not conflict with the prevailing character of the area.”

“For the reasons above, the proposal is deemed to be acceptable in design character, and appearance terms. This is concurred by the Council’s Conservation Officer, who has been consulted and raised no objections to the proposal.”

Officer report

Objections and consultation

A petition and five individual objections raised concerns about the conservation area, parking, neighbours, trees, ecology, drainage and construction.

“Disputes over P arty Wall agreements, where relevant, are a civil matter between the two parties and are not a material planning consideration. IX. Concerns about construction impact; structural integrity of the outbuilding (including excavation works, potential need for retaining walls and subsidence). Contractors will be required to adhere to all relevant regulations to limit this impact on neighbours.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The lead petitioner did not attend, and the applicant’s agent chose not to address the committee.

Committee questions

Members questioned future independent or residential use, parking demand, staffing, enforcement and whether approval could encourage further commercial garden development.

“It was explained that parking standards were determined by floor space, at a ratio of one parking space per 50–100 square metres of office space. It was noted that, even with the additional outbuilding, the overall floor area would not exceed approximately 150 square metres, hence no more than three parking spaces would be required.”

“Councillors asked whether granting approval could set a precedent for further commercial intensification in rear gardens within the locality. Officers confirmed that each application would have to be assessed on its own merits and that the approval of this proposal would not set a precedent. It was noted that other outbuildings already existed in the surrounding area, and it was considered that the proposal would not be out of character.”

Minutes

The vote

The officer recommendation was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed subject to the conditions in the report.

“No further concerns were raised by the Committee. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed subject to the conditions set out in the report.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved subject to the stated conditions.

“RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.”

Minutes