Single storey extension and garage conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 April 2026 by S Sharp BSc(Hons) BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004708 21 Park Crescent, Reading RG30 2NL • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Sebastian Plesciuc against the decision of Reading Borough Council. • The application reference is PL/25/1207. • The development proposed is single storey extension and garage conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The appellant submitted amended plans for the proposed garage conversion during the processing of the application by the Council. They were not the subject of publicity by the Council, and the application was determined based on the original plans. The appellant has included the amended plans as an appendix to their statement and requested that they are the subject of my decision. 3. The amended plans are substantially different to the original proposal. Given this appeal is following the householder procedure, the Council and interested parties have had no ability to make comments on them. As such it would not be fair or reasonable to accept the amendments, and my decision is based on the original proposals assessed by the Council. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed garage conversion on the living conditions of future occupiers of No 20 Park Crescent (No 20) with regard to outlook and whether it is overbearing. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a detached dormer bungalow with ground and first floor windows set within the gable end facing over the rear garden. No 20 is similar in design with ground floor patio doors within the gable end opening onto the rear garden. There are other windows at ground and first floor level within this elevation facing its garden. 6. I observed, from the appeal site, that there is a patio area immediately adjacent to No 20’s patio doors with patio furniture set out. This arrangement is also evident in the photographs included in the appellant’s evidence. It is reasonable to assume that the patio would be the area of the garden most used by future occupiers of No 20, given how it is landscaped and its proximity to indoor facilities. Appeal Decision 6004708 2 7. The existing garage at the appeal site abuts the boundary with No 20. The garage is single storey and has a flat roof, the roof extending not markedly above the boundary fence height which flanks it. The garage adjoins No 20’s patio area. 8. The proposed conversion would maintain the same footprint but lift the eaves line above the existing roof height and add a gabled roof. The roof is proposed to slope away from the boundary with No 20. Nonetheless, the massing would materially increase. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments that much of the outlook from the rear rooms and the patio of No 20 is, and would remain, directly down the length of their garden. The garden is long, relatively unobstructed and landscaped with established planting. 9. However, I observed that the garden is relatively narrow. This would mean that the proposal would be a proximate, dominant, blank form within the field of vision when standing or sitting within the patio area, or in the room served by the patio doors at No 20. This effect on the outlook would result in unacceptable levels of harm to future occupiers of this property. 10. I also find that the proximity of the mass of the proposal, as result of its length and height next to the boundary, would result in it having an overbearing effect on future users of the patio space. This effect would be markedly different to that resulting from the existing garage in the same location because of the material increase in height. Again, the effect would result in unacceptable levels of harm to future occupiers of No 20. 11. The harm arising from both outlook and the overbearing effects of the proposal, would result in conflict with policies H9 and CC8 of the Reading Borough Local Plan (2019) (RBLP). These policies seek to ensure that proposals do not cause a detrimental impact on the living environment of existing residential properties when assessed against a number of considerations including visual dominance, outlook and overbearing effects. Other Matters 12. There is common ground between the main parties in relation to the acceptability of the proposed rear extension and with regards to the acceptable effect of the garage conversion element of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. I have no evidence before me to conclude differently on these matters. The proposal would accord with policy CC7 of the RBLP which is cited in the Council’s reason for refusal but relates to such matters rather than the effect on living conditions of neighbouring properties. 13. The appellant’s statement has also cited the lack of Council evidence in relation to the effects of the garage conversion element of the proposal on No 20’s sunlight and daylight. However, these effects are not cited in the Council’s reason and are not a matter in dispute. Conclusion 14. For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. S Sharp INSPECTOR