Appeal 6001822

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposal on character and appearance of the area.

The development is situated within a residential area in Slough, located on the quiet cul-de-sac of [address]. The surrounding street scene is predominantly characterised by two storey detached dwellings set within private garden plots.

The building is a large detached dwelling positioned within a small private garden. The plot contains a variety of established planting, with a row of mature trees located along the rear boundary. These trees are subject to Tree protection order (TPO). The building is two-storeys in height, constructed in yellow brick with hipped roofs. The original dwelling has been extended over time and now includes a single-storey extension to the front and side, a conservatory to the rear and several outbuildings within the garden area.

The development proposed would be a hip-to-gable roof extension and a loft conversion incorporating a large dormer extension with large windows to the rear, and three rooflights to the front. The development would change the existing hipped roof to a pitched roof with gable walls to each end.

The changes proposed would significantly change the form, scale and character of the dwelling, resulting in a building that appears visually larger and prominent than the existing structure. The increase in scale and massing would be particularly noticeable given the relatively small size of the plot and when viewed from neighbouring properties and gardens.

The appellant contends that there are gable ends and a variety of roof profiles present within the local area. While it is acknowledged that some properties do feature gable ends and that there is a degree of variation in roof forms, the prevailing roof form of the adjoining dwellings is hipped. This is particularly evident when the properties are viewed from the rear, where the consistent appearance of hipped roofs forms a coherent and characteristic pattern. The development proposed would change the original roof shape from a hipped to a pitched roof, creating two full gable ends. This alteration would substantially change the form and character of the existing building, which would not be in keeping with the original design of the house.

The plans submitted do not provide dimensions for either the set down from the ridge nor an area of the dormer extension. Based on the evidence I have before me, the set down from the ridge is less than the minimum of 0.5 metres required by The Residential Extensions Guidelines of the Supplementary Planning Document (2010) (RESPD), and the dormer extension proposed would occupy more than 50 per cent of the roof slope, exceeding the maximum in the guidance. Therefore, the development would not be in keeping with the original design, nor would it be subordinate to the original house.

The appellant argues that as the dormer extension is located at the rear of the building, it would have an imperceptible physical and visual presence within the public realm. While the development would not be visible from public vantage points, it would have a strong visual presence within the neighbouring properties and private gardens. Due to the considerable scale and its elevated position at second floor height, the dormer extension would present a visually intrusive feature when viewed from adjoining dwellings and gardens.

Taking all matters into account, I conclude that the adverse effects of the development on the character and appearance of the local area, would result in a clear conflict with the relevant policies of the Slough Local Plan (2004) (Local Plan). In particular, the proposal would be contrary to policies H15 and EN1 and EN2 of the Local Plan, Policy 8 of [name] (2008) ([name]), insofar as these seek to ensure high quality development that is in keeping with the existing property, respects the local character, and integrates sensitively with its surroundings in terms of scale, massing, building form, and visual impact.

In addition, the proposal would conflict with guidance contained within DP1, DP3, EX33, EX34 and EX37 of RESPD, which seek to ensure that extensions are in keeping with the original design of the house and its surroundings, and remain subordinate, and in proportion to, the original building.

The site is located within [name] 2 & 3 of the Environment Agency’s Flood Map. Accordingly, the appellant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted. However, since the appeal is dismissed, there is no need to consider this matter further.

The site is subject to Tree Preservation Order (TPO). However, the development would not include groundworks or any other works that would affect the protected trees. As such, the TPO trees on the site would not be harmed by the proposal.

It is acknowledged that the development would provide some benefits to the occupiers of [site address] through the creation of additional internal space. However, any wider benefits such as contributions to the economic, social or environmental wellbeing of the surrounding area would be limited. As such, the private benefits to the appellant do not outweigh the identified harm arising from the proposal.

I have had regard to third-party representations in regard to potential overlooking, but as the appeal is dismissed for other reasons, there is no need to consider this matter further.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the development would conflict with the development plan, as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework that indicate a decision other than in accordance with the plan. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.