Slough planning round-up: Two homes refused infilling large garden in Cippenham Green

The following planning applications for new homes and flats have been either determined or validated in the past week. Read more by entering their reference number into Slough Borough Council's planning portal.

Refused: Two semi-detached homes at the rear of 128 St Georges Crescent have been turned down.

This is despite promises of a ‘highly sustainable and future proofed’ scheme making allegedly good use of an ‘underutilised’ and ‘abnormally large garden’ – and claims these smaller homes ‘are more affordable, intended to allow people to step onto the property ladder.’

“The application site is an abnormally large area of garden land, untypical in this area,” wrote the applicants’ representatives, Churchgate Developments Group Ltd.

“The subdivision of the land to form a new plot would therefore proposal would maintain the density of the area.

“The layout also provides for sufficient spacing to create an attractive urban environment on site, with appropriate landscaping and amenity space.”

It also offered an ‘opportunity to enhance natural surveillance along a poorly surveilled lane.’

The parking area would have been served by a wall-mounted car charging point for EV’s.

But Slough’s planning team felt the materials, height, width, positioning, siting, scale, mass and bulk of the building 'fails to relate' to the character of the area.

It predominantly consists of single storey ancillary outbuildings serving their host properties.

The development ‘would appear as an incongruous addition ... resulting in significant and demonstrable harm,’ officers wrote.

They also considered that the access from the public right of way at Oldway Lane 'would not be appropriate.'

This is a secondary access for the homes in St Georges Crescent, which could be 'detrimental' to the safety of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.

Being located in the rear half of a neighbour’s back garden, the scheme would create a ‘stark, visually intrusive form of development, resulting in a loss of openness and outlook.’

Additionally, it would encroach on the privacy of neighbours with overlooking ‘likely to arise.’

Furthermore, if the council approved this scheme, the authority ‘would find it difficult to resist similar proposals for backland development' which they felt threatened to 'further exacerbat[e] the identified harm.’

P/20359/000

Refused: A lone one-bed end-of-terrace home has been quashed by Slough council.

It would have included six solar panels and an electric vehicle charger to the side of number 132 Weekes Drive.

The site's surrounding area has a large volume of minor and major planning applications. This includes plans for various developments which are still being decided.

But all this development did nothing to help the applicant's case. Officers felt the width and scale of the building was a problem - and ‘fails to respect’ the established uniform character of this part of the road.

It would thus appear an 'incongruous' addition to the street scene, wrote officers.

With only one bedroom, the proposal does not deliver the family housing required to justify 'infill' developments outside the town centre.

All in all, the scheme 'does not improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area,' officers concluded.

P/20126/001

Refused: Slough council has turned down a new house adjacent to number 2 Aldborough Spur.

The council said the house would be cramped and an overdevelopment of the site.

Its design and width cause ‘harm to the street scene and has the appearance of a contrived and discordant scheme,’ officers wrote.

The proposal ‘fails’ to offer a food level of amenity, in accord with minimum floorspace requirements.

P/15128/003