The applicant sought planning permission for a proposed outbuilding in the rear garden of 89 Norcot Road, Tilehurst, Reading RG30 6BS. The host property is a semi-detached two-storey dwelling with an existing side extension and two-storey rear extension. The proposed outbuilding was to be positioned in the rear garden, which abuts residential properties on Midwinter Close to the north, with further residential gardens to the east and west.
The proposal was for a single-storey outbuilding with 2.475 metre eaves height and an overall height of 4 metres with a pitched roof, positioned adjacent to the garden boundaries on either side.
Our objection established at the outset that the proposed outbuilding was not permitted development. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 specifies that outbuildings within two metres of a boundary must not exceed 2.5 metres in height. The proposed structure, at 4 metres overall with 2.475 metre eaves, failed this test by virtue of its proximity to the garden boundaries — meaning the application required planning permission and could not be treated as permitted development, regardless of any other arguments.
Policy CC7 of the Reading Borough Local Plan (Adopted November 2019) requires all development to be of high design quality that maintains and enhances the character and appearance of the area. The height and bulk of the proposed outbuilding, positioned immediately adjacent to the side boundaries, would introduce a dominant and incongruous built form into the rear garden environment. The structure's massing was disproportionate to both the host property and the surrounding residential context.
Policy H9 of the Local Plan addresses house extensions and ancillary accommodation, requiring that extensions and outbuildings be subordinate to the host dwelling, respect the character of the area, and not harm the amenity of neighbouring properties. At 4 metres in height with a 2.475 metre eaves level, the proposed outbuilding failed to meet the subordinacy requirement.
The positioning of the outbuilding adjacent to the rear and side boundaries raised significant concerns about its impact on the outlook and amenity of neighbouring properties on Midwinter Close to the north, and the adjacent residential gardens to east and west. A 4 metre high structure immediately at the boundary would create an overbearing and dominant presence when viewed from neighbouring gardens and rear windows, causing a material reduction in the quality of the outlook for adjoining occupiers.
We also raised the potential for the outbuilding to be used for purposes beyond simple storage — including as ancillary residential accommodation — without further planning permission, given its scale and the absence of any condition restricting its use. This future-use concern is a legitimate material consideration where the structure is of a scale that lends itself to intensified occupation.
Following the submission of our objection, the application was amended. The revised scheme reduced the height and bulk of the outbuilding to address the permitted development height concerns and the amenity impact on neighbouring properties. The amended scheme represented a materially less harmful proposal than the original submission.
Outbuilding applications are often submitted without adequate attention to the permitted development height rules, which impose strict limits on structures near boundaries. Identifying a clear breach of the GPDO at the outset of an objection establishes immediately that the application requires scrutiny, and frames the policy arguments that follow.
This case also illustrates the value of raising future-use concerns as a material planning consideration — particularly where a structure's scale and facilities go beyond what is needed for the stated purpose.
Start with a free, no-obligation assessment. We’ll advise on the strength of your case before you commit to anything.
Get Free Assessment →