Appeal 6005836

The appeal is dismissed.

The above description is taken from the planning application form. The plans show that it is proposed that the outbuilding would be used as a home office and gym, ancillary to the dwelling. The description on the Council’s decision notice was amended to the following: • Construction of a detached rear outbuilding to be used as ancillary to the main dwelling.

This is more accurate than the description on the application form and this amended version was used by the appellant in their appeal form. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the amended description.

The main issues are (i) Whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to outlook and the provision of private amenity space; and (ii) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that policies and decisions should ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. EX48 of the Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document, 2010 ([name]) states that a minimum garden depth of 15 metres should be retained for houses with [site address] bedrooms. When planning permission was granted at the appeal site in 2021, for development which included a rear extension, the Council’s officer report states that the depth of remaining garden varied between 11.1m and 12.5m. Consequently, as part of the permission, the Council removed permitted development rights for Class E outbuildings given concerns regarding the remaining amenity space.

The officer’s report states that the proposed development would result in a garden depth of approximately 6.3m, noting that the resultant garden shape would not have irregular boundaries. This figure has not been contested by the appellant, and a remaining garden length of this order would be significantly below the minimum requirement in the [name].

No [site address] [site address] is a large [site address] -bedroom home. The development proposal would result in a very short garden for a dwelling of this size, significantly shorter than garden depths of surrounding properties shown on the submitted location and block plans. The outlook from the rear of the ground floor of the dwelling would be of a cramped garden space with the outbuilding dominating the view. The development would therefore unacceptably harm the outlook for future occupants.

The garden space needs to be sufficient to accommodate a range of activities that could reasonably be expected to occur at the same time during good weather, such as outdoor living, clothes drying and children’s play. The proposal would not retain sufficient garden space to adequately accommodate the activity that could be expected of a dwelling of this size.

The appellant refers to an outbuilding at No [address], as an example of a similar outbuilding that extends across the full width of a garden. I do not know the planning details relating to that outbuilding but note from the block plan submitted, that a larger garden space appears to have been retained in that case. For these reasons this example has limited weight in support of the appeal.

The appellant says that retaining garden space is not important to him and that the role of the Council is not to determine how much garden space should be available and how it is used. However, planning matters concern the use of land, and setting standards, such as those set out in the [name], ensure that appropriate living conditions are provided for both existing and future occupiers. Notwithstanding the appellant’s personal needs, the retained garden land is insufficient for the reasons set out above.

The proposed development would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to outlook and private amenity space. It is therefore in conflict with Policy CP8 of the Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document, 2008, (the [name]), saved Policy EN1 from the Borough of Slough Local Plan, 2004 (the Local Plan) which require a good standard of design that avoids overdevelopment and provides an appropriate level of amenity space. It is also contrary to guidance in EX39 and EX48 of the [name] regarding required garden depth and area. Policies EN2 and H15 from the Local Plan relate to extensions and were not determinative in my decision.

The appeal proposal complies with the footprint and height requirements for an outbuilding in EX39 of the [name]. With regard to character and appearance EX39 of the [name] states, “Outbuildings, where these would be visible from the adjacent public highway may need to be reduced in height and size to ensure these do not have a detrimental impact on the street scene, especially in the case of prominent corner sites.”

Very limited views are available from [site address] to the proposed outbuilding, and these limited views would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area from public viewpoints.

The Council has raised concerns that allowing the development would set a precedent for allowing substantial outbuildings, resulting in limited amenity space, that would then become part of the character and appearance of the area. No examples have been provided of potential sites to which this might apply or an assessment of the impact on character and appearance should they come forward. Each planning application needs to be assessed on its individual merits. In this case the appeal proposal would not have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area and is policy compliant.

The proposal is therefore compliant with Policy CP8 of the [name], with regard to development respecting its location and surroundings, and elements of EX38 and EX39 of the [name] which relate to character and appearance of the area and require outbuildings not to detract from the character of the area.

While the proposed development would not result in undue harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, it would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to outlook and the provision of private amenity space. It would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations to indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.