Appeal 6000500

Words that do not describe acts of development are omitted from the description of the proposal in the banner above.

This appeal is considered on the basis that the development has already been undertaken.

The canopy has a different structure, form, and materials from the host dwelling. However, its open sides and rear, together with its low height and fairly short length, give it a subordinate and less substantial appearance than both the original house and the modest single-storey rear extension it adjoins. That being the case, and even if it would not accord with all the guidelines in the Council’s Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document1, its height, scale, and appearance are compatible with and subservient to the original dwelling. This is whether the canopy is considered on its own or in combination with the previous rear extension.

Many of the houses within both the terrace the appeal site forms part of and the terrace it backs onto have had rear extensions and/or outbuildings erected within the rear gardens. These are of different sizes and designs and use a range of external materials. Consequently, there is considerable variety in the appearance and form of development to the rear of these houses. That being the case, the modest canopy on the rear of the host dwelling is not an incongruous or prominent addition to the area.

For these reasons, the proposal does not harm the character and appearance of the area, and in this respect, it accords with the policies cited on the decision notice. 1 Slough Borough Council – Slough Local Development Framework – Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document – [name] 2010 Issue – effect on the living conditions of occupiers of number 34 Stanley East Green (no. 34), with particular regard to light and outlook

Notwithstanding the presence of the single-storey extension to the rear of the house on the appeal site, and despite the proximity of the canopy to the house and rear garden at no. 34, the occupiers of this neighbouring property have a reasonable outlook over and above their moderately sized rear garden. This is at least partly because the canopy is only a little higher than the tall trellis-topped close-boarded fence on the shared boundary between these properties, and because of its fairly short length and open sides.

For the same reasons, any reduction in daylight to number 34 from the construction of the canopy has been negligible. Moreover, and due to the location of the canopy, any associated reduction in sunlight has been restricted to a small part of the rear garden and limited to the mornings only. This being the case, the occupiers of number 34 are still able to secure reasonable levels of sunlight and daylight.

Consequently, the proposal does not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of number 34, with particular regard to light and outlook, and it accords with the relevant policies cited in the decision notice.

In respect of the issues raised above, I have found that the proposal has not caused harm. That being the case, allowing this appeal would not create a precedent for harmful development in the area.

Even if the materials used in the canopy are not as durable as those in the main part of the house, I have no reason to doubt that it will be kept in good repair.

As the proposal has been undertaken, there is no need for any conditions to be imposed.

The proposal complies with the development plan as a whole and nothing indicates a decision otherwise.