Erection of the single storey side/rear canopy

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 April 2018 by Amanda Blicq BSc (Hons) MA CMLI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: Wednesday 18th April 2018. Appeal Ref: APP/J0350/D/17/3190297 96 Montague Road, Slough SL1 3RW  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Borcanescu against the decision of Slough Borough Council.  The application Ref P/17061/000, dated 9 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 6 September 2017.  The development proposed is erection of the single storey side/rear canopy. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. This is a retrospective application, but this has not affected my reasoning. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the development on: ● The living conditions of occupiers of 94 and 98 Montague Road (Nos 94 and 98), with particular regard to outlook; and, ● The character and appearance of the area. Reasons Living conditions 4. Number 96 Montague Road (No 96) is a mid-terrace dwelling, with a single storey kitchen extension located along the boundary with No 94. The canopy is an L-shaped timber-framed, open-sided structure that wraps around the kitchen extension. As well as projecting beyond the kitchen’s rear elevation by about 3 metres, the canopy fills in the gap between the kitchen and the plot boundary with No 98. The application is to retain the canopy. 5. Number 98 has a rear projection which largely mirrors that of No 96. It has a glazed door and two windows, one of which appears to serve the kitchen. There is also a window serving a habitable room which is set back and which has a view facing the garden between No 98’s kitchen and the plot boundary. The canopy’s eaves height is a few inches higher than the top of the boundary fence, which is itself approaching some 2 metres in height. 6. These are modest dwellings with window openings of limited size. I conclude that the outlook from those windows is important to occupiers, particularly if Appeal Decision APP/J0350/D/17/3190297 2 there is only one window to a room, which appears to be the case for No 98’s kitchen and the window facing the garden. 7. Views from No 98’s kitchen will look directly onto the boundary fence. However, I am satisfied that before the canopy was built there would have been views of the sky. The canopy has obstructed and at least significantly reduced that view. It has also further enclosed the already restricted view from the window facing the garden. 8. Furthermore, the canopy’s roof will be difficult to keep clean from within No 96’s plot. I concur with the occupier of No 98 that over time this type of plastic sheeting will become dirty and discoloured. As the canopy is largely shaded by the dwellings it is also likely to become colonised by algae and moss. This will effectively reduce translucency which, it is argued, minimises the canopy’s overall effect. This will be unsightly for occupiers of No 98 and reinforces my reasoning with regard to the canopy’s visual impact from that dwelling. 9. The SPD1 states that for rear extensions, account will be taken account of site considerations and the impact of the development on neighbouring residents. On the basis of my observations, I conclude that the canopy is having a detrimental effect on the living conditions of occupiers of No 98 with regard to outlook. 10. The canopy would not be particularly visible in views from No 94, which in any case has a shed opposite windows on its rear elevation. I am satisfied that the canopy would not cause harm to the living conditions of occupiers of No 94. 11. However, in relation to occupiers of No 98, the development is contrary to Policies H15, EN1 and EN2 of the Local Plan2 (LP) and Policy 8 of the Core Strategy3 (CS) which taken together expect development in existing residential areas to respect the amenities of adjoining occupiers, amongst other considerations. Character and appearance 12. The canopy projects beyond the rear elevation by less than the permissible limit of 3.65 metres given in the SPD. However, as the canopy is L-shaped it is a combination of a rear and side extension. Consequently, the permissible limits for rear extensions do not apply. 13. In addition, the materials used, which comprise timber and plastic sheeting, are unsympathetic to the materials used in the fabric of the house. Moreover, the shallow pitched roof abutting the kitchen roof between the ridge and the eaves, is incongruous with the design of the host dwelling. The canopy is also disproportionately large in relation to the host dwelling and the underlying building pattern. Although this is not particularly apparent when viewed end on from the garden, I conclude that its full extent would be apparent from the two storey sections of both Nos 96 and 98, particularly when viewed from first floor level. 14. Consequently, although I appreciate that the canopy cannot be seen from the street, I am satisfied that it is having an adverse effect on the character and 1 Slough Local Development Framework, Residential Extensions Guidelines, SPD, adopted January 2010 2 Slough Local Plan, adopted 2004 3 Slough Local Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006 – 2026 Development Plan Document Appeal Decision APP/J0350/D/17/3190297 3 appearance of the area, albeit at a localised level. Accordingly, the development would be contrary to the design aims of the SPD, LP Policies H15, EN1 and EN2, and CS Policy 8. These, taken together, require development to be reflective of its surroundings amongst other considerations. The Council has also referred to the National Planning Policy Framework in its decision notice. However, although generally supportive of the policies cited, it is less specific than the policies to which I have referred. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above and taking all matters into account, I conclude that the development would be contrary to the relevant policies of the Council’s Local Plan and that therefore the appeal should be dismissed. Amanda Blicq INSPECTOR