Appeal 6003575

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development upon: (i) the character and appearance of the area; (ii) the living conditions of future occupiers, with particular regard to living space and privacy.

The appeal site forms part of the existing outdoor space associated with No. [site address] . Given the tight knit urban grain in the surrounding area, and the fact that the appeal site is immediately adjacent to [address], it undoubtedly contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area by providing an important element of spaciousness.

The proposed development would involve the construction of a single dwelling which would continue the existing row of terraced housing along [name]. It is abundantly clear that filling the existing gap to the side of No. 18 would greatly erode the feeling of spaciousness that currently exists. It would therefore create a greater perception of enclosure within this part of the street, thereby detracting from the character of the area. Furthermore, the approved plans clearly show that the width of the proposed dwelling would be noticeably narrower than that of No.

Therefore, despite the fact that other elements of the design would conform with the existing character of the area, including the materials used, the new home would have the appearance of being ‘squeezed in’ and therefore quite contrived and incongruous.

I acknowledge that the appellant has previously received planning permission to extend the existing dwelling. However, the plans show that the proposed dwelling in this instance would be sited closer to the boundary and would therefore represent a much greater amount of built form. In addition, a new dwelling, on a constrained plot, would also be much more harmful to the character of the immediate area than an extension.

I note that the dwelling at No. [address] has already been extended to fill the gap to the side of the property. However, the context is quite different given that this part of the street has a more spacious feel as a result of the sports field opposite. Moreover, as I have already noted, an extended dwelling is quite different to a new home that would be forced into a constrained plot.

As part of their Planning Design Statement (September 2025), the appellant has also provided some details of other schemes in the surrounding area that they believe to be similar to the proposal before me. Some of these developments are extensions to existing homes and are therefore not directly comparable to the proposed development in this instance. Other examples have involved the extension of terraces that run parallel to a road which again is quite different to this proposal where the homes on [name] are sited perpendicular to [address]. Moreover, irrespective of the examples provided by the appellant, it is clear that the proposed dwelling would be seen within the context of the immediate area that it is located within, and I have set out why this would result in harm.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would conflict with Policies EN1 and H13 of the Slough Local Plan, March 2004 (the LP), as well as Core Policy 8 of the [name] 2006 – 2026 (the CS). Taken together, the relevant aspects of these policies seek to ensure that new development is well designed and that it preserves character and appearance. [name] understand the Council’s reasoning for including [name] EN2 and H15 on the decision notice, I do not find direct conflict with them given that they apply to residential extensions rather than the construction of new homes.

It is not a matter of dispute between the main parties that the floorspace of the proposed dwelling would fall very slightly below the relevant standards as set out within the [name]. However, I am satisfied that this minor deficit would, in practice, make no discernible difference to the living standards of future occupiers. I therefore do not find harm in this regard.

The proposed parking spaces would be situated on a shared driveway area to the front of the properties. However, in most instances, accessing the parked vehicles would likely be a relatively fleeting process in terms of time, and therefore any views into front windows would be temporary in nature. Indeed, such parking arrangements are not unusual elsewhere. In my view, any effect on privacy would not be of a sufficient level to constitute harm.

As a result, the proposal would not result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of either the proposed dwelling or host dwelling. It would therefore conform with the relevant aspects of paragraph 135(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which requires a high standard of amenity for existing and future residents.

No. 18 currently has room to accommodate two vehicles in off-street parking spaces. The Council’s officer report refers to the parking standards contained within the Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document. Paragraph 10.1 of this document sets out that, for two or three bedroom homes, two parking spaces are required. While not referred to in paragraph 10.1, the officer report notes that, for one bedroom homes, the requirement is reduced to one parking space.

Meanwhile, the appellant’s [name] (April 2025) sets out a need for 1.5 spaces per dwelling. Therefore, while I do not seem to have been presented with any formal parking standards for new dwellings, there seems to be an agreement between the main parties that there would be a requirement for three off-street parking spaces to serve the needs of the existing and proposed dwellings.

In this instance, the proposal would include the provision of two spaces. However, the approved plans show that the ability to access one of these spaces would likely be compromised by the provision of a bin store. It is therefore quite possible that the proposal would, in effect, result in a deficit of two off-street spaces.

The appellant’s [name] sets out that the field work was undertaken after 00:30 hours on a Wednesday and Thursday. In both instances it was found that there were a large number of available on street spaces within the survey area. I can see no reason to dispute the findings of the survey. Furthermore, while only a snapshot in time in the middle of a weekday, I did note on my site visit that on-street parking is unrestricted in this area and that there were many available spaces.

In addition, the provision of off-street spaces immediately in front of houses is quite common, and I do not consider that the vehicle movements associated with accessing them at slow speeds with result in safety concerns for occupiers.

On that basis, while the proposed number of off-street spaces in this instance would not accord with the relevant guidance, I do not find that the proposal would result in highway safety issues, either on or off site. As such, the proposal would conform with the relevant aspects of LP Policy T2 which seek to ensure that parking provision is appropriate to its location, including by overcoming any road safety problems.

From the evidence before me, the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with the current figure being just 2.5 years. In such circumstances the test set out in paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework is engaged.

In this instance, the benefits of the proposal include the provision of a single new home that would assist in meeting need in the area, support local facilities, and create jobs during the construction phase. Despite the level of shortfall in housing land supply and delivery, which leads me to attribute increased weight to the benefits, I still only afford limited weight to them overall given that they are relatively minor in nature.

I have concluded that there would be material harm to the character and appearance of the area, notwithstanding the fact that I have not found harm in relation to highway safety or living conditions. The support for the principle of development within the Framework, including making efficient use of land, is countered by the importance it places on the provision of development that preserves character and appearance.

In this instance, for the reasons given, the harm to character and appearance would be both significant and enduring. As a result, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, I conclude that the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Consequently, the proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that outweigh the identified harm. The appeal is therefore dismissed.