Appeal 6002303

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey front and side ground floor extension to the existing commercial shopfront at [address], Slough, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application ref P/02790/005, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

No development above ground level shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No access shall be provided to the roof of the extension by way of window, door or stairway and the roof of the extension hereby approved shall not be used as a balcony or sitting out area.

The finished floor levels of the extension shall be no lower than those of the existing floor levels within the building.

No development above ground level shall take place until details of the implementation, adoption, maintenance and management of the water storage tank have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, and managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

The extension hereby permitted shall not be used other than in association and as part of the existing retail unit known as [address].

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: PL-01 A, PL-100, PL-02, PL-03, PL-04, PL-05, PL-06, PL-07, PL-08, PL-09.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on, firstly, the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and, secondly, highway safety.

The appeal property is a two storey retail store, evidently formed by the amalgamation of two buildings. The building has been altered and extended in the past, with these changes being seen in views along the road due to the location of the property at the junction with [address]. Other properties nearby have been extended and altered.

I am informed the property lies within a local shopping centre, as designated in the Slough Local Plan (2004). The property lies at the end of a short terrace of retail units, with other retail and community uses opposite and to the west and east of the site. These buildings are set well back from the highway, with deep footways in front. To the east of the appeal property there is a large open area of footway which leads to a spacious character at this junction of the two roads. The wider area is residential, with two storey houses. The area is mixed in character and appearance due to these uses, and due to the alterations and extensions to buildings.

The proposed single storey extension would provide additional retail space for the property. It would be larger than the existing awning and the area used to display goods at the premises, and would project to the front and side of the store. This would bring the building further towards the highway on both [address] and [address].

As noted above, the building and its neighbours are set well back from the highway. Whilst this area would be reduced, the degree of intrusion into the undeveloped area would ensure the overall spacious character of the area is retained. There would remain a good degree of set-back from [address] and at the junction with [address]. In views along roads towards the site the open appearance of this part of the street scene would remain, with no undue imposition upon the road or to neighbouring properties.

The scale and height of the proposed extension would be appropriate for the property. I saw that other properties in the area have extensions to the sides and front which, although smaller in scale than the appeal scheme, are part of the character of the area. The proposed projection from the front and side would be proportionate to building, and to the wider terrace. The simple brick design and form would be different to the original appearance of the building and terrace, but it would bring a cohesion to the building, which currently sees a number of extensions and alterations of different form and appearance.

Core Policy 8 of the [name] (2008) requires all development to be of a high quality design that, amongst other matters, is practical, attractive, safe, accessible and adaptable, and respects its location and surroundings. [name] EN1 and EN2 Local Plan also require a high standard of design for developments, including extensions to building, that is compatible with and/or improves its surroundings. The National Planning Policy Framework seeks to ensure well-designed places and high quality in design. The proposed extension would satisfy these policies as it would be a practical, accessible and adaptable addition to the building in the local shopping centre, whose design and scale would respect the surrounding area and host property. On the first issue I therefore conclude that the proposal would not be harmful to character and appearance of the area.

The development proposes an extension to the existing retail unit. There is no formal parking provision at present for customers visiting the property, with parking taking place on the road. It also appears from the information presented to me that deliveries and services are predominately taken from the road, or on occasion in an unauthorised manner from the footway. No parking or change to servicing is proposed as part of the scheme.

The Council state that this part of [address] and the surrounding highways are subject to high levels of parking stress. They raise concern that there will be an increased demand for parking, and that there is insufficient information to demonstrate the that deliveries and servicing could be undertaken.

I am not persuaded that the proposed extension would lead to an increase in demand for parking by customers that would materially affect demand for on-street parking in the area, or to highway safety. The extension is to provide more space for the existing retail unit, with the new area being notably smaller in floor area than the existing internal space. Part of this area replaces the existing open area of goods display; I acknowledge that open area is smaller (and would be retail space only used part of the time) but nonetheless it is evident to me the proposal is one of making an existing retail unit larger. I do not think the scale of increase in this retail unit is likely to lead to a significant change in the number of people visiting by car.

A crucial matter in this opinion is the location of the retail unit in an area surrounded by housing, and adjoining other retail units and other community uses in the designated local shopping centre. At my site visit I saw a high degree of pedestrian activity in the area, with many people walking to the appeal premises (and other shops) from the surrounding area. This was the case despite there being many free parking spaces on the road; ie customers were choosing to walk rather than drive to the shop. I also saw buses along the road, which stopped to serve the area. During my site visit I additionally saw a delivery to the store. This took place from a van parked within a marked parking space on the road.

It is apparent to me from the location of the site that a good proportion of customers to the appeal premises are very likely to not arrive by car, but walk from the surrounding area or arrive by other modes of transport. This will be for trips specifically to the premises, or as part of a combined trip to other facilities in the area. Although there would undoubtedly be more permanent retail space as a result of the extension – and there is no control over any different occupier in the future – I am not persuaded that this general pattern of custom to the premises would significantly change.

I accept that my observations are only a snapshot (though I stayed at the site for some time to observe the situation) and that the Council have drawn my attention to examples of what appears to be unauthorised parking. But those examples similarly appear as snapshots and, in the absence of any detailed survey for parking stress or activities in the area from either party, I consider my observations to be reasonable. My observations reinforce my overall views on this matter, which are based on consideration of the wider character of the location and the nature and scale of the proposed development.

Saved Policy T2 of the Local Plan says that additional on-site car parking provision will only be required where this is needed to overcome road safety problems, protect the amenities and operational requirements of adjoining users, and ensure that access can be obtained for deliveries and emergency vehicles. The Framework states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. On the basis of what I have read and seen, I consider the increase in the size of the retail unit that would arise from the proposed extension would not lead to a material change to parking demand in the area, servicing, or any material change in road safety. Thus, there is not a need for additional on-site car parking provision or for deliveries/servicing. On the second main issue I conclude that the proposed development would not be harmful to highway safety.

The extension would be distant enough from adjoining residential properties to ensure no impact upon existing occupiers by virtue of outlook or levels of light. The scale of extension to the existing retail unit would not lead to a greater use of the premises that may have a material change to levels of activities or disturbance in the area.

The proposals show a storage unit to capture rainwater, to address matters of surface water drainage. Finished floor levels would be set to ensure the proposed extension is resilient to flood risk. These matters were acceptable to the Council in order to address flood risk matters, subject to planning conditions, and I concur.

The extension would be on hard surfaced area with no loss of natural habitat, and so there would be no effect on ecology or biodiversity.

The Council have suggested a number of conditions in the event of the appeal being allowed, which I have considered in light of the six tests for planning conditions contained at paragraph 57 of the Framework and paragraph 003 of the Planning Practice Guidance: Use of Conditions.

The application specified the extension would be built of bricks to match the existing building, and I commented earlier that a brick extension was appropriate. However, I noted at my site visit that there is a variety of brick types at the building, and the building is also partly rendered. I have attached a condition requiring the submission and approval of materials used in the extension in the interests of precision, and to ensure suitable materials are used.

I have attached a condition preventing the use of the roof of the extension as a sitting out area in the interests of amenity, as such use would allow views down from an elevated position.

I have attached a condition required finished floor levels to be no lower than the existing floor levels, to ensure the development is resilient to flood risk. I have also attached a condition requiring details to be submitted for the proposed water storage tank and long-term maintenance of that, to ensure satisfactory drainage is provided.

I consider the suggested condition requiring the extension to only be used in association with the existing retail unit to be necessary: the layout of the extension means it may be possible to sub-divide the unit, which might then give rise to different considerations regarding the pattern of activities arising from a further retail unit rather than an extension to the existing retail space.

No change is proposed to servicing or deliveries, and I have found the extension would not have an adverse impact on these matters. Hence there is no need for a condition requiring the submission of further details.

I have attached a condition specifying the approved drawings in the interests of precision.

For the reasons given above I conclude the proposed development is consistent with the development plan and the Framework. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.