Appeal 6000580

The appeal is dismissed.

Applications for costs were made by Slough Borough Council against AA & Sons Ltd, and also by AA & Sons Ltd against Slough Borough Council. Those applications are the subject of separate Decisions.

The application was submitted in outline form with all matters reserved for later consideration. As such, I have considered the details on the plans relating to matters of layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and access as illustrative only.

In the header above I have used the description of development given on the application form, but omitted any wording which does not describe development. I recognise however that the plans show a three storey side extension with mansard roof, not just a ground floor extension as the description would suggest. However, the plans do indicate that a similar three storey side extension has already been granted planning permission1, though not built, and I have taken this into account.

The description also refers to 5 x 2 bed flats and 13 x 1 bed flats being proposed, whereas the plans show 3 x 2 bed flats and 15 x 1 bed flats. The decision notice correctly refers to the mix of units as shown on the originally submitted plans.

Three days before the committee meeting at which the Council made their decision on the application, the appellant submitted amended drawings indicating 1 x 3 bed flat, 4 x 2 bed flats and 13 x 1 bed flats, and some small changes to increase the distance of parts of the proposal from the south and rear boundaries. The Council 1 [name]/00378/031 and P/00378/032 did not consider these plans in making their decision. Although the plans are illustrative, it would be inappropriate to accept them and consider an amended description of the proposal at the appeal stage, as interested parties and consultees may not have seen the amended plans or the amended description and so would be prejudiced were I to accept these changes now.

The appellant, as part of the exchanges relating to the costs applications, has brought to my attention an appeal in which the Inspector accepted drawings submitted before the Council made their decision. However, from the details provided, in that case the amended plans provided clarification rather than a substantial difference or fundamental alteration to the proposed development. That is not the case in this current appeal.

The main issues are: i) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; ii) the effect on highway safety; iii) whether the development would be required to provide financial contributions towards affordable housing, local infrastructure and to mitigate any impact on the integrity of the Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and if so whether a suitable mechanism to secure that has been provided; iv) the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties in respect of their outlook; v) whether the development would provide acceptable living conditions for its future occupiers in respect of their outlook and noise; and vi) whether the development would promote sustainable modes of travel.

The appeal site comprises an end of terrace property in use commercially at ground floor and with three floors of residential accommodation above. The site also includes the land at the rear, which comprises a service yard and an ancillary building, and is where the majority of the proposal would be positioned.

[address], near the site, is a busy dual carriageway with numerous retail premises including a supermarket opposite the site. The other properties in the host terrace are also in retail use at ground floor with flats over two floors above. To the rear of the remainder of the terrace is the service access and some low level commercial buildings.

The drawings show a three-storey extension projecting from the rear of the existing frontage building and extending almost the whole depth of the site. There is already a substantial single storey storage building here with a car park and some plant on its roof, but the greater height of the three-storey proposal would be a significant enlargement and would be conspicuous from a number of public viewpoints including [address] and [address]. Whilst it is recognised that the scale of the development is a reserved matter, any three-storey development to provide 18 flats would necessarily need to cover the majority of the plot behind the frontage building. A development of this size would compete with the host building in terms of mass and would appear discordant when seen in the context of the remainder of the terrace, which has not been extended rearwards in any significant way, and the commercial units to its rear.

The appellant refers to a number of other examples of developments locally, such as in Chalvey, Langley, and on [address], where flats have been built amongst shorter development. However, apart from being in the same Borough, they have little in common with the context of the appeal site and are materially different schemes all being principally new buildings rather than extensions. They have no material bearing on my consideration of the appeal proposal.

I recognise the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework), in chapter 11, supports the effective use of land. However this should not be done at the expense of maintaining the character and appearance of the area, which is also supported by the Framework in chapter 12.

There is no reason to consider that a side extension would necessarily cause harm to the character or appearance of the street scene, particularly as the illustrative drawings suggest it would largely reflect that which has already been granted planning permission. Also, although the Council raise objection to the grey cladding which has already been installed on the existing building, this would also not be a matter for consideration at this outline stage.

Nonetheless, a three-storey development of 18 flats would necessarily be a large building which would appear incongruous and hence would harm the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Local Plan (2004) policy EN1 and [name] 1 and 8 of the [name] (2008) which together aim to ensure that development respects and is compatible with the character of its surroundings including in terms of scale and mass.

The development would involve the loss of the rear servicing area for the existing commercial premises. The plans show a replacement loading bay in front of the site. The space shown would not be large enough for even small commercial delivery vehicles and due to its position at the start of the slip road which runs in front of the terrace, it is likely that, to be used, it would require vehicles to reverse into it. Furthermore, the area where the bay would be, is at present marked by double yellow lines. There is no certainty that the highways authority would agree to their replacement with a loading bay, particularly if the lines are there to enable the free flow of traffic through the narrow slip road.

The bay is only shown illustratively. Nonetheless, the unavoidable loss of the rear servicing area would increase the likelihood of the highway in front of the retail unit being used for loading and unloading. There is no evidence before me to demonstrate that this could be safely accommodated on the highway without detrimentally affecting the free flow of traffic and hence highway safety. Indeed at the time of my site visit there was no available parking in the slip road.

[name] understand the Council have suggested a condition requiring details of the servicing to be submitted with the reserved matters, this does not prejudice their objection.

The proposal would involve the closing up of the existing service access. [name] have no reason to consider the existing access is unsafe or that it is used so frequently that its closure would be a significant benefit of the scheme.

The Council also raise objection to the design of the bin stores citing they are too narrow for bins to be manoeuvred through, and that the proximity of the side extension to the boundary wall would also prevent bins being brough to the pavement for collection. However, these are issues which could readily be addressed through the provision of details in a reserved matters application. At this outline stage I could not conclude that the development would necessarily result in bins being stored on the pavement such that it would be hazardous to highway users.

Nonetheless, due to the lack of any acceptable details for a replacement loading area, the development would be likely to compromise highway safety. This would be contrary to Core Policy 7 which requires development to make appropriate provision for improving road safety.

A unilateral undertaking was provided during the appeal which purports to provide financial contributions towards affordable housing, education, improvements at Upton Court Park to mitigate harm to [name], and transport infrastructure works. However the figures within the undertaking in respect of the contributions to education and affordable housing relate to a development of 13 x one bed flats, 4 x two bed flats and 1 x three bed flat which, as explained earlier, is not the development on which the Council’s decision was based or on which I have considered this appeal. Consequently, those parts of the undertaking are not fairly related in scale to the development and therefore I have not taken them into account.

Core Policy 4 identifies that at least 30% of all housing in schemes of 15 units or more will be required to be social rented. As, without a completed planning obligation this could not be secured, the proposal would fail to accord with this policy.

The other contributions would all mitigate the effects of the development and so are of no positive benefit. As such, and as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I need not give them any further consideration.

To the south of the site there is a complex of small dwellings known as [address], comprising some single storey dwellings and some two storey buildings split into flats. The garden area around them is effectively communal. At present the storage building on the appeal site is positioned on the south boundary and its side wall is roughly as tall as the eaves of the two-storey building at [address]. This provides a degree of enclosure to the dwellings and their communal areas and the proposal would involve the removal of this. Whilst scale and layout are reserved matters, it is possible that a three-storey extension could be sufficiently distant from the south boundary such that any effect on the outlook from these neighbouring properties would be no more harmful than that which already results from the built form currently on site.

On the other side of the site are the flats above the other shops in the terrace. The existing building at the appeal site extends slightly further back at first and second floors than the rest of the terrace, and this is visible from the rear facing windows at No. 237a, as well as the other flats in the row. A three-storey extension would be substantially deeper and taller than the existing built form on site. Again, it may be possible to position a three-storey rear extension a sufficient distance from the northern boundary such that any effect on the outlook from these neighbouring flats would not be harmed.

However, it would not be possible for a three-storey extension for 18 flats to be sufficiently distant from both side boundaries such that it would avoid harming the outlook from the nearest properties to both sides. An extension, such as that illustrated in the plans, when seen from the nearest windows at No. 237a would appear oppressive and harm the outlook from this flat, even if the daylight received by it would not be harmfully reduced. An extension closer to the south boundary than as illustrated, would appear more oppressive than the existing building, and would be likely to harm the outlook from at least the communal areas at [address] making them gloomy.

As such, the development would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal would therefore conflict with policy EN1 of the Local Plan which states that development must have a compatible relationship with nearby properties, and Core Policy 8 which states that development should respect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

The appellant suggests that the removal of the existing building and the industrial plant would be of benefit to the neighbours. However such plant is an established part of the commercial character of the area, and the replacement extension would be far taller and so likely to have a greater impact on the outlook of neighbouring residents, than the existing development on site. In addition whilst it is possible currently to look down into the communal areas of [address] from the rooftop car park, I would not expect that this is a regular occurrence, given it is a private commercial premises and could be prevented simply by shutting the entrance gates. As such, any benefits in this regard are negligible.

The appellant refers to the development at the former Willow Tree, but clearly matters of outlook and privacy are dependent on the relationship between specific windows and built form and so the relationships at one site some distance away can have little bearing on my assessment of the relationships at the appeal site.

The Council have concerns regarding the outlook from the lower and upper ground floor flats in the proposal. However given that appearance and layout are reserved matters, the positions of the windows in the flats, or indeed the position of the flats themselves, would be addressed at that stage. I cannot therefore conclude that the outlook from any part of the proposal would necessarily be unacceptable. This is particularly the case because the adjacent land to the rear and south is reasonably open and any flats may not necessarily face the side elevation of [address].

This reason for refusal also refers to a lack of a noise assessment to demonstrate future occupiers would not be adversely affected by noise from the other commercial businesses nearby or traffic on [address]. However the officer report recognises that this could be provided at the reserved matters stage, when the precise location of the flats and their openings would be known. I have no reason to disagree.

Overall, the development would not necessarily fail to provide acceptable living conditions for its future occupiers. It therefore would not, in this respect, conflict with policy EN1, and Core policy 8 which both require development to be of a high quality design.

The reason for refusal also refers to Local Plan policies EN3 and H14. But these refer to landscaping and amenity space and there is no suggestion that the development would be unacceptable in these regards.

The Council suggest the development provides an insufficient amount of visitor cycle parking and that access to the cycle parking for the proposed flats would be restricted by a step. However given the outline nature of the proposal, it is possible that details of an acceptable quantum and arrangement of cycle parking could be provided at the reserved matters stage. For the same reason, the provision, as illustrated, of an excessive amount of cycle parking to serve the flats attracts little positive weight. Nonetheless, there is no reason to consider that the development could not support the use of sustainable modes of transport. Therefore the development would accord with Local Plan policy T8 which seeks to ensure that proposals have suitable cycle parking, and Core Policy 7 which requires schemes to make travel by sustainable means more attractive than the private car.

The Council accept they do not have a five-year supply of housing land with the evidence suggesting it is around 2.5 years. This is a substantial shortfall. Accordingly, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework states that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. It adds that particular regard should be had to policies relating to developing in sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well designed places and providing affordable homes.

The flats would be sustainably located, being in a busy commercial area with good access to a range of service and facilities, and the scheme would represent an efficient use of the land in providing 18 flats. These are significant benefits. However, for the reasons set out above, the provision of a three-storey development of a scale to provide 18 flats could not represent good design given the modest scale of surrounding development and the inevitable harmful effect on the outlook from neighbouring properties. There would therefore be conflict with paragraphs 135 and 139 of the Framework which attract considerable weight. In addition the failure to provide a satisfactory mechanism to secure the required affordable housing also carries considerable weight.

Aside from these policies, the fact that the development would provide 18 additional units to contribute to the Council’s supply at a time when there is a significant shortfall would reflect paragraph 61 of the Framework by boosting housing supply and is a substantial benefit. Likewise the re-use of brownfield land accords with paragraph 125 and carries substantial weight. There would also be a modest economic benefit during the construction phase.

Conversely the development would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety which would be contrary to paragraph 116 which carries significant weight. I can give only negligible weight to any environmental benefits a scheme may have, such as through the provision of a green roof or solar panels, at this outline stage.

[name] consider the conflict with policies relating to design, affordable housing and highway safety, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the provision of 18 flats on a brownfield site, in a sustainable location and the economic benefits associated with that at a time when there is an insufficient supply of housing locally. Therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

I have noted the appeal decision relating to the development at the [name]. However in that case the Inspector found a minor conflict with the development plan which was outweighed by other considerations. That is not comparable to the case before me where there are several areas of conflict with the

The development would be harmful in terms of its effect on the character and appearance of the area, the effect on highway safety, the living conditions of neighbouring residents and affordable housing provision, and this outweighs the lack of harm with regard to promoting sustainable travel and providing acceptable living conditions for its future occupiers. The proposal would therefore conflict with policies of the development plan taken as a whole, and as they are generally consistent with the Framework, I give substantial weight to that.

The other considerations, including the provision of the Framework, do not lead me to a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. As such the appeal is dismissed.