Overview
This case concerned an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the use of part of a house as a small medical and professional clinic, alongside continued use as a dwellinghouse, at 13 Thorpland Avenue in Ickenham.
The proposal involved a mixed use falling within Use Class C3 and Class E, comprising a dwellinghouse with a physiotherapy clinic and medico-legal consultation space. The London Borough of Hillingdon refused the application on policy grounds, arguing that the use should be located within a town centre. Following a site visit and written representations, the planning inspector allowed the appeal and granted planning permission, subject to conditions.
The proposal
The appeal related to a two-storey terraced house with an attached single-storey garage. Planning permission was sought for the conversion of the garage, together with a modest single-storey rear extension behind it, to provide a small clinic.
The clinic was to comprise a single consulting room, a small waiting area and a WC. The space would be used for physiotherapy and osteopathy appointments, together with occasional medico-legal consultations. The scale of the use was deliberately limited. Appointments would be pre-booked only, with one patient at a time, and no medical procedures taking place on site. Working hours were proposed to be within daytime and early evening hours, with no Sunday or bank holiday use.
The remainder of the property would continue to be used as a private dwelling.
The council’s reason for refusal
The council refused the application for a single reason. It concluded that the proposal failed to demonstrate that the new commercial use would support and strengthen the role of town centres as the primary focus for commercial activity, contrary to Policy SD6 of the London Plan.
Notably, the council did not raise objections in relation to neighbour amenity, design, parking or highway safety. The sole issue in dispute was therefore one of policy location, rather than site-specific harm.
The inspector’s assessment
In allowing the appeal, the inspector made several important findings.
First, the inspector accepted that while town centres are identified as the primary locations for commercial activity, the policy framework does not require all forms of commercial or professional use to be located exclusively within town centres. The inspector noted that Policy SD7 applies the sequential test only to ‘main town centre uses’, and that the proposal did not fall within that category.
The inspector also considered the definition of main town centre uses in the National Planning Policy Framework. Although health and fitness centres are listed, this is in the context of intensive uses, which the proposed physiotherapy clinic clearly was not. The proposal involved a single consulting room with tightly limited capacity and operating hours, and this was a material consideration.
The inspector placed weight on the modest scale of the use, the absence of evidence that it would divert trade from town centres, and the fact that similar small-scale clinics are commonly found in residential areas to serve local communities. The inspector also accepted that there were no other comparable services in the immediate area, and that the proposal would serve a local catchment, including people with reduced mobility.
Other considerations
Although parking was raised as a concern by third parties, the inspector noted that the scheme provided three off-street parking spaces and complied with the council’s parking standards. The inspector was satisfied that the proposal would not result in unacceptable parking pressure.
The inspector also found that the scale of the extension and the nature of the use would not harm neighbouring living conditions in terms of noise, outlook or disturbance. Opening hours and the number of consulting rooms were controlled by condition to ensure the use remained low-key and compatible with the residential setting.
The decision
The appeal was allowed and planning permission was granted for the mixed use of the property as a dwellinghouse and a medical and professional clinic. Conditions were imposed to restrict opening hours, limit the use to a single consulting room, and prevent any intensification beyond the approved use.
The inspector concluded that the proposal complied with the development plan when read as a whole and that there were no material considerations indicating that permission should be refused.
Why this appeal succeeded
This appeal succeeded because it addressed a common misconception in planning decision-making: that all commercial or professional uses must be directed to town centres regardless of scale or function.
The inspector accepted that small-scale, community-focused uses can be appropriate in residential areas where they are carefully controlled, generate limited activity, and do not undermine town centre vitality. The case demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between genuinely town-centre-dependent uses and modest professional services intended to serve a local area.
If you are facing any similar planning problems and would like the help of our planning appeal experts, do not hesitate to get in touch!
Don’t miss our dedicated Hillingdon planning appeals page, as well as our recent post on making successful appeals in the borough.
