Erection of lean to timber pergola structure with clear sheet covering

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 March 2019 by K E Down MA(Oxon) MSC MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9 April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/J0350/D/19/3221339 9 Ripley Close, Slough, SL3 7QH • 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 Chandrakant Singh against the decision of Slough Borough Council. • The application Ref P/16328/001, dated 3 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 9 November 2018. • The development proposed is erection of lean to timber pergola structure with clear sheet covering. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a lean to timber pergola structure with clear sheet covering at 9 Ripley Close, Slough, SL3 7QH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P/16328/001, dated 3 September 2018, and the plans submitted with it. Procedural matter 2. The Council refers to the effect on occupiers of Nos 7 and 11 Ripley Close in its decision notice. However, the adjacent dwellings are Nos 8 and 10. It is clear from the evidence that it is these dwellings to which the Council is referring. I have therefore used the correct numbering in my decision Main Issues 3. There are two main issues. Firstly, the effect of the proposed structure on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and secondly, the effect of the proposed structure on the living conditions of occupiers at Nos 8 and 10 Ripley Close with respect to outlook and visual impact. Reasons 4. The appeal dwelling is a modest, mid-terraced house of modern design. It has a single storey extension to the rear, some 3m in depth. The proposed covered pergola has been erected. It occupies almost the full width of the plot and lies immediately behind the single storey extension. It is supported on stout wooden posts which have been painted white and has a flat, polycarbonate roof which sits at the height of the eaves of the single storey extension. Although it can be Appeal Decision APP/J0350/D/19/3221339 2 seen from Wilford Road this is across several gardens and it is only just visible above the boundary fences. If allowed to remain it would therefore have no material effect on the character or appearance of the street or wider area. 5. Although clearly visible from the garden of the appeal dwelling, its limited height and open structure means that the pergola would not significantly obscure the rear elevation of the dwelling. Neither would it compete with its simple architecture or read as a conventional extension. Therefore, despite the overall depth of rear additions which clearly exceed the guidelines set out in the Council’s Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), 2010, the dwelling would not appear out of proportion in itself or with neighbouring properties. In addition, the plot would not appear unduly cramped, with an adequate section of open grass remaining. The Council considers the materials to be out of keeping but they would be appropriate in the context of a garden structure and the white painted posts complement the white window and door frames in the dwelling. 6. It is therefore concluded on the first main issue that the proposed structure would have no materially detrimental effect on the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. In consequence, there would be no conflict with Policies EN1, EN2 or H15 of The Local Plan for Slough (LP), 2004, Core Policy 8 of the Core Strategy 2006-2026 (CS), 2008 or the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) insofar as they expect residential extensions to be of a high quality design such that they are compatible with the original building and their surroundings. 7. Turning to the effect on living conditions, both neighbours have an open outlook over their own gardens which would not alter. No 10 has a single storey rear extension with central patio doors. The close boarded boundary fence is topped by a section of trellis which is only marginally lower than the proposed structure and extends beyond it. Therefore the proposed structure would have no material effect on outlook from the ground floor windows. It would be more visible from first floor but would not be intrusive or overbearing in terms of outlook. 8. No 8 has no rear extension but is separated from the appeal dwelling at ground floor by an alley which provides rear access for both properties. The proposed open structure, whilst visible, would therefore be sufficiently well separated from ground floor windows in that dwelling such that it would not materially impinge on outlook or result in any significant visual intrusion. It would be visible from first floor windows but, as at No 10, it would not be intrusive or overbearing. 9. It is concluded on the second main issue that the proposed structure would have no materially harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of Nos 8 and 10 Ripley Close with respect to outlook and visual impact. In consequence, there would be no conflict with LP Policies EN1, EN2 or H15, CS Core Policy 8, the NPPF or the SPD insofar as they expect residential extensions to have no significant adverse effect on the amenity of adjoining occupiers. 10. The Council draws my attention to another appeal decision relating to a single storey canopy (APP/J0350/D/17/3190297). Whilst I do not have full details of that case, it appears to relate to a materially different dwelling and a structure Appeal Decision APP/J0350/D/19/3221339 3 with a different relationship with both the host and neighbouring dwellings, especially in terms of outlook and visual impact. The two cases are not therefore readily comparable. Moreover, I have considered the current appeal on its own merits in the context of local and national policy. 11. The appeal structure has been completed. It is therefore unnecessary for me to impose planning conditions. The Council suggests a condition requiring the structure to be kept open. I have no evidence that enclosure is contemplated but this would, in any case, result in a material change to the appeal proposal that would need to be considered by the Council if it occurred. 12. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. K E Down INSPECTOR