Appeal 6002717

The appeal is allowed, and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for a 6m single storey rear extension with maximum height of 3m in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: Y/20831/001 and the details submitted with it, including drawings: Location Plan (ref TQRQM25126063229107), Site Plan Proposed (ref TQRQM25126063504848), Proposed Plan (ref 040107-PR001 [name]), [name] (ref 040107-PR002 [name]), [name] (040107- PR003 [name]).

Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended)(GPDO) grants permission for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and

Where any objections are received to a proposal, the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is required as to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises. [name].4(7) to Part 1 requires the LPA to assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of all adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. I have considered the appeal on the same basis.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No’s 107 and [address].

During my site visit I observed that the rear garden space of No. 109 is of a substantial size as a result of its generous length. It also appeared that the neighbouring gardens of No’s 107 and 111 were of similar proportions. With regards to the scheme before me, I acknowledge that the proposed extension would be taller than the existing boundary treatments on either side of the garden, and as such, it would be partly visible from the neighbouring gardens of No’s 107 and 111.

However, the size of the gardens along the terrace clearly provides a distinct feeling of spaciousness and openness. As a result, I do not consider that the extension would result in the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings having a perception of being cramped or enclosed. Indeed, the flat roof design of the extension would mean that it would be an unobtrusive feature which would not result in harm to outlook.

Given that the extension would be of limited height, and that the rear gardens are north facing, there is no reason for me to conclude that the proposal would reduce the amount of daylight or sunlight reaching the neighbouring properties. In addition, the single storey nature of the scheme means that there would be no privacy concerns.

On that basis the proposed extension would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and would therefore conform with the aforementioned legislative requirements. In reaching my decision, I have also had regard to the development plan policies set out within the Council’s decision notice, notably Core Policy 8 of the Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2006 –

and Policies H15, EN1 and EN2 of the Slough Local Plan, March 2004. Taken together, the relevant aspects of these policies seek to ensure that new developments, including extensions, are well designed, including by preserving living conditions. The proposal would conform with these aims.

The Council has also noted the requirements of the Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document, January 2010 (the SPD). This sets out that, for terraced properties, rear extensions should not exceed 3.65 metres in length. However, this is just guidance, and I have set out why the length of the proposed development would not result in harm in this instance. As such, the proposal would therefore conform with the overarching aims of the SPD, particularly in relation to good design and living conditions.

On the basis of the approved plans, I am satisfied that the width of the proposed extension would not impinge on the existing access that exists to the neighbouring property at No. 107. Matters relating to any issues that might affect the foundations of neighbouring properties are not a planning matter. Finally, matters relating to construction noise are covered by separate legislation, as noted within the Council’s officer report.

Paragraph A4(11) of Part 1, Class A of the GDPO sets out that the development must be carried out in accordance with approved details. I have also listed the relevant plans as part of this decision.

I do not find it necessary to impose a condition that would remove certain permitted development rights. Indeed, given the single storey nature of the proposed extension, there is no reason for me to conclude that the installation of additional windows or roof lights in future would result in any harm. Any proposal to enable the proposed extension to be utilised for anything other than ancillary space would clearly require separate approval.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed, and prior approval should be granted.