Appeal 3282623

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s Decision Notice refers to the Slough Borough Council Residential Extension Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document 2010 (SPD), Section 8.0, which advises on roof extensions, dormer windows and roof lights. However, in the main body of the [name], references are only made to side extensions and specific paragraphs within section 5.0 of the SPD. As such, the reference on the Council’s Decision Notice is an error, and the merits of the appeal have been assessed with respect to the advice and guidance in section 5.0 of the SPD.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property, and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of St. Mary’s Church Conservation Area.

St. Mary’s Church Conservation Area (the CA) is principally characterised by the siting of St. [name], its grounds and ancillary buildings, which are located to the south east of the designation. On the opposite side of the Road, it is generally contemporary dwellings fronting St. [address] with a staggered building line. Most of these dwellings are outside the CA boundary, however, a row of dwellings, including two pairs of semi-detached period properties are included near to the bend in the Road. The significance of the CA is, in part, derived from the set back position of the buildings from the highway and the generous spacing between then, which contributes to the openness of the area.

[address] is a two-storey contemporary detached dwelling located within the CA. The dwelling is orientated at an angle with a staggered set back, has a pitched roof, gable frontage and is finished in brick. The flat roofed extensions to the side are marginally forward of the adjacent neighbouring property’s front elevation to the north, but a notable gap remains between the properties at first floor, which makes a positive contribution to the openness of the CA. The orientation of the host property, staggered building line and visual relief at first floor positively contributes to the character and appearance of the CA. The appeal site and street scene are appreciable from wider vantage points to the north, and from the bend in the Road to the south.

The extension would significantly increase the scale and width of the host dwelling at first floor, resulting in a dominant addition that would adversely impact upon the scale, massing, and appearance of the host dwelling from the front. The impact of the extension is exacerbated by the angle of the front wall and the complex series of roof designs, which would be incompatible with the orientation and simple pitched roof of the gable fronted dwelling. The extension would also be forward of the adjoining neighbours at first floor, largely infilling the notable gap between No 25 and the appeal property. As such, while a significantly smaller gap would be retained, the scale, siting and orientation of the extension would unacceptably dominate the host dwelling and diminish the contribution the gap makes to the openness of the area.

Although it is appreciated that the dwelling is positioned on a bend in the Road, the curve is not so significant that the scale and massing of the extension would not be appreciable from vantage points along the Road. Consequently, the siting of the dwelling on the curve would not adequately mitigate the scale and massing of the extension and the resultant impact upon the host dwelling and the CA.

Overall, the proposal would unacceptably impact upon the character and appearance of the host property and would fail to preserve the character or appearance of St. Mary’s Church Conservation Area. As such, it would be contrary to Core Policy 8 of the Slough Borough Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2008, saved Policies H15, EN1 and EN2 of the Slough Borough Council Local Plan 2004 and Section 5.0 of the SPD. These policies, and guidance, seek to ensure proposals are of a high-quality design, which respects its location and surroundings, improving the quality of the environment and street scene. It would also fail to accord with the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

For the reasons given above and taking into account the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.