Alterations including PV panels and raising of the roof to enlarge the existing first-floor accommodation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 May 2026 by D Wilson BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007084 Nightingales, Mill Lane, Tidmarsh, Reading, West Berkshire RG8 8EB  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 R Hood against the decision of West Berkshire District Council.  The application Ref is 25/02245/HOUSE.  The development proposed is alterations including PV panels and raising of the roof to enlarge the existing first-floor accommodation. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alterations including PV panels and raising of the roof to enlarge the existing first-floor accommodation at Nightingales, Mill Lane, Tidmarsh, Reading, West Berkshire RG8 8EB in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02245/HOUSE, subject to the following conditions. 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: Location Plan – 25005/PL/01 Rev A Design and Access Statement Proposed Plans – 25005/PL06 Rev F Proposed Elevations – 25005/PL07 Rev C Flood Risk Assessment – dated 6 November 2025 Sustainability Statement – dated 6 November 2025 Naturebureau Bat Emergence Surveys of Nightingales, Mill Lane, Tidmarsh, RG8 8EB 19 September 2025 Preliminary Matter 2. I have used the Council’s description of development as it accurately describes the appeal proposal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on flood risk. Appeal Decision 6007084 2 Reasons 4. The appeal site is located within Flood Zone 3b which is the functional floodplain. Paragraph 176 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that applications for some minor development such as householder development which includes the physical extensions to an existing dwelling, means that the Sequential Test does not need to be applied. The sequential test is therefore not required for the appeal proposal before me, however, a site-specific flood risk assessment may still be required. 5. Planning Practice Guidance1 outlines that a pragmatic approach should be taken to the scope and level of detail of the assessment – a shorter, simpler assessment is likely to be sufficient in most such cases. As a minimum, the assessment needs to show that the development will be safe for its users for the intended lifetime of the development, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and be sufficiently flood resistant and resilient to the level and nature of the flood risk. 6. The application was accompanied by a flood risk assessment that found that through a reduction in overall footprint and proposed flood resilience measures, that it would not cause new or exacerbate existing flooding problems either on site or offsite. 7. The Council consider that the proposed development would increase the covered area within the flood zone by 30%. However, based on the information before me the proposed development would result in a slight overall reduction in footprint. 8. The proposed development would increase the overall size of the dwelling as a result of extending upwards, and while there would be more overall space, the number of bedrooms would not increase, and it is therefore unlikely that occupation would increase. 9. Proposed improvements include moving two existing bedrooms from the ground floor to the first floor, moving the front door closer to the site entrance and new concrete floors, walls, plaster and raised electrics. The existing ground floor levels would be raised albeit the ground floor height would be below the recommended height above flood levels for new development. There are no changes proposed to existing surface water drainage which is a soakaway drainage scheme, however, the increase in permeable area would be an improvement to the existing situation. 10. Taking a pragmatic approach, the improvements outlined, combined with the overall reduction in footprint would result in an improved situation from the existing. Furthermore, the flood risk assessment identifies safe access and escape routes are available as part of an emergency plan. I am therefore satisfied that the development would be safe for its users for the intended lifetime of the development, without increasing flood risk elsewhere. 11. I therefore consider that the proposed development would not result in an increased risk of flooding. I find no conflict with Policy SP6 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023-2041 Adopted June 2025 and Paragraph 170 of the Framework. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that the development will be safe for its lifetime and not increase flood risk elsewhere. 1 051 Reference ID: 7-051-20220825 Appeal Decision 6007084 3 Other Matters 12. I note that concern has been raised about works that may have taken place outside of the appeal site, however, there is little information before me in respect of these matters and as they are outside of the appeal site they are not before me to consider as part of this appeal. The concerns in regard to the potential alteration of a drainage channel are covered by different legislation and are not for me to consider as part of this appeal. Conditions 13. Condition 1 is the standard condition that relates to the commencement of development and condition 2 specifies the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt. 14. I have not imposed a condition that requires details of a license issued by Natural England as this is covered by different legislation. I have also not imposed additional conditions requiring the details within the Bat Emergence Survey Report (September 2025, Nature Bureau Limited) to be complied with as this is already covered by condition 2 and does not need to be duplicated. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. D Wilson INSPECTOR