An outbuilding enforcement appeal in Slough has failed after a Planning Inspector upheld a notice requiring demolition of a self-contained residential building in a back garden. Inspector M Ollerenshaw dismissed appeal 3374310 on 29 October 2026, after correcting the wording of the enforcement allegation to make clear that the notice concerned both the building and its use as a dwelling.
The case concerned an outbuilding at Dawley Ride, where an owner argued that removing domestic facilities and retaining the structure as a gym or store would be a proportionate alternative to demolition. The Inspector rejected that approach because the enforcement notice sought to remedy the unauthorised erection of the building itself as well as its residential occupation.
The outbuilding enforcement appeal is important beyond the individual site. It shows when an Inspector may correct an allegation without causing injustice, why a different proposed domestic use cannot simply be substituted into a ground (a) appeal, and why an appellant must understand whether a notice seeks to stop a use or reverse operational development.
What the outbuilding enforcement appeal involved
Slough Borough Council issued an enforcement notice in September 2025 alleging the unauthorised erection of a self-contained building in the rear garden of a semi-detached home. The notice required the residential use to cease, removal of the kitchen, shower room, internal walls and associated plumbing, demolition of the building, and clearance of debris. The owner appealed under grounds (a) and (f) of section 174(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Ground (a) effectively invites consideration of planning permission for the breach alleged in the notice. Ground (f) asks whether the steps required by the notice exceed what is necessary to remedy the breach or the injury to amenity. The two arguments have different purposes, and an appellant may lose both even where they propose an apparently less drastic way to use an existing building.
In the outbuilding enforcement appeal, the owner said the structure was no longer being used as a dwelling and could function as a domestic gym and storage area after removal of its kitchen. The Inspector accepted that this would be materially different from an independent residential use, but found it did not resolve what was actually alleged and required in the notice.
Why the inspector corrected the allegation
The enforcement notice referred to the unauthorised erection of a self-contained building but did not expressly include its residential use in the description of the breach. Elsewhere, however, it required residential occupation to cease and residential facilities to be stripped out. The Inspector considered the notice as a whole, including its requirements and the evidence exchanged during the appeal.
Using section 176(1)(a), Inspector Ollerenshaw corrected the allegation by adding the words and its use as a dwelling
. The decision explains that both parties had addressed the question of residential occupation and had an opportunity to comment on the proposed correction. The Inspector was therefore satisfied that the clarification caused no injustice.
That distinction matters in an outbuilding enforcement appeal. A correction is not necessarily a new allegation: the legal question includes whether the parties understood the substance of the case and could respond fairly. This decision was a factual application of that principle, not a general permission for councils to rewrite defective notices without limits.
Why the domestic gym alternative was outside ground (a)
The owner asked the Inspector to consider the building without its independent residential use, potentially retaining it as a gym and store ancillary to the house. The appeal decision recognised that such a structure could have a materially different planning character from a self-contained dwelling, but that was not the development described in the alleged breach.
The powers under section 177(1)(a) to grant planning permission in a ground (a) enforcement appeal relate to all or part of the matters specified in the notice. They did not allow the Inspector to decide an entirely different proposal for an incidental domestic outbuilding. That scheme would need to be assessed through its own lawful planning route, not treated as the subject of the enforcement appeal.
The practical mistake this exposes is conflating a proposed future arrangement with the development under enforcement. In the outbuilding enforcement appeal, the appellant’s offer to remove the kitchen was relevant to what might happen next, but it did not broaden the statutory scope of the appeal or oblige the Inspector to authorise the alternative.
Living standards, neighbours and parking
Turning to the residential proposal, the Inspector found that the building occupied a considerable part of the garden, leaving cramped and inadequate amenity space for both the new occupants and the original house. Its single-storey flat-roof design also differed from the surrounding pattern of larger two-storey homes and garden spaces.
The internal living and kitchen space was long and narrow, with little scope for ordinary furniture and circulation. Windows and a rooflight brought natural light, but close-range overlooking from the rear windows of the main house meant a lack of privacy for the occupiers of both buildings. The Inspector also considered the likely noise and disturbance from additional independent occupation close to the principal dwelling and neighbouring gardens.
Parking was another material objection. The Inspector saw heavily used on-street parking during a weekday site visit and found insufficient evidence that additional demand could be accommodated without risking obstruction or compromised highway safety. Some other council concerns, including ceiling height and noise insulation, carried little weight because they lacked sufficient supporting assessment.
These matters explain why permission was refused independently of the technical enforcement points. The outbuilding enforcement appeal could not be rescued simply by citing the national preference for additional homes. The Inspector gave substantial weight to the housing benefit, while recognising that its contribution was limited in scale, but found it substantially outweighed by the harms to design, living conditions, neighbour amenity and highway safety.
Why demolition survived the ground (f) challenge
The enforcement notice sought to remedy unauthorised operational development and residential use, not just prevent further occupation. The appellant argued that removing the kitchen and limiting the structure to a gym and store should suffice. The Inspector considered whether those lesser steps would achieve the purpose of the notice as framed under section 173(4).
Because the building itself was unauthorised and the notice required land to be returned to its condition before the breach, leaving the structure standing would not remedy the operational development. Nor could the Inspector impose a new condition restricting future use as a substitute for the notice’s requirements. No other obvious lesser steps capable of achieving its purpose were identified.
The ground (f) appeal therefore failed, and demolition remained required. This is why the precise drafting and purpose of an enforcement notice matter so much. Planning Geek’s enforcement notice and appeal guidance explains the different appeal grounds, while our granny annexe planning guide addresses the difference between ancillary accommodation and independent residential use.
What property owners can learn
Before arguing that a garden building should remain, owners should establish whether the council alleges a material change of use, the construction of a building without permission, or both. An outbuilding may cease to function as a separate home yet still face enforcement over the structure itself. The statutory scope of ground (a), the notice’s remedial purpose and the availability of any separate application must be assessed distinctly.
This outbuilding enforcement appeal illustrates the limit of promising to make an unauthorised building less residential. The Inspector’s correction clarified the notice; it did not remove the building allegation. The ultimate dismissal was based on the merits of the residential scheme and the conclusion that demolition was necessary to remedy the development complained of.
The official Planning Inspectorate appeal record 3374310 concerns Inspector Ollerenshaw’s 29 October 2026 decision and the corrected notice. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase. The quoted correction wording comes from the Planning Inspectorate decision, published under the Open Government Licence v3.0. No separate costs decision or named High Court judgment was identified in the retrieved record.
0 Comments