Appeal 6004030

The appeal is dismissed.

In the interests of clarity, I have used the description of development as provided on the Council’s decision notice and the appellant’s appeal form.

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

The appeal site currently benefits from an extant planning permission for a front extension1 to the existing premises. This represents a legitimate fallback position, and it is therefore appropriate to compare it with the appeal scheme that is before me.

It is noticeable when looking at the plans for the previously permitted scheme that the height of the extension would have enabled the gable ends of the existing roof to be visible. From the photographs provided within the appellant’s Planning Statement, it is clear that this feature previously contributed positively to the character of the immediate surrounds. In contrast, the appeal scheme is a taller structure which hides the gable ends almost entirely. This is indicative of a poorly designed development which clearly appears as a contrived addition rather than a well thought out and natural extension that respects and preserves the appearance of the existing building.

Moreover, the appeal scheme has utilised black bricks to a significant extent. Given the lack of such materials elsewhere in the vicinity, this ensures that the extension appears as a highly unusual and incongruous feature within the street 1 Council ref: P/02189/017 scene. In addition, the darker colour makes the extension appear as a more prominent and dominant structure which adds to the harm. The fact that some of the homes opposite might have black window frames and doors does very little to mitigate this issue. I note that it could be possible to paint the brickwork to better reflect local character. However, I find that such a finish would still detract from the appearance of the building when compared to the previously permitted development. In essence therefore, whether one compares the appeal scheme to the permitted extension, or as a standalone proposal, it clearly has resulted in harm to character and appearance.

As a result, the development conflicts with Policies EN1 and EN2 of the Slough Local Plan 2004 (the LP), as well as Core Policy 8 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy, 2006 – 2026. Taken together, the relevant aspects of these policies seek to ensure that new development is well designed and that it preserves character and appearance. Given that the development also clearly constitutes a new shop front, I am satisfied that there would also be a conflict with LP Policy S17, which in part, requires that such proposals are well designed.

The appellant, as part of their Planning Statement, has referenced two other developments within the vicinity2. However, the Council has noted that these are related to advertisements which are clearly not directly comparable to the scheme before me. As such, these proposals do not alter my conclusions in this case.

The appellant has also suggested that the relevant development plan policies should be considered to be ‘out of date’. However, policies are not automatically deemed to be out of date purely because of the fact that they were adopted some time ago. Indeed, in this instance, the relevant policies are entirely consistent with the aspects of the National Planning Policy Framework which seek to ensure that new development is well designed. Affording significant weight to the identified policy conflict is therefore entirely appropriate.

The proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and would therefore conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. Whilst the provision of the extension would have some economic benefits for the local area and potentially improve the shopping experience for customers to some extent, the small-scale nature of the scheme means that any such benefits are likely to be limited. Accordingly, there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. The appeal is therefore dismissed.