Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed19 July 20243329316

28 Southampton Street , Reading , RG1 2QL

to redevelop the site for a three storey building to provide 6 x 1-bedroom flats

Authority
Reading Borough Council
Appeal type
minor · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
residential · Minor Dwellings
Inspector
Willis S

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of St Giles Court with regard to outlook, privacy, daylight and sunlight, No 26-28 with regard to privacy, and No 34-38 with regard to outlook, disturbance, sunlight, daylight and odour
  • Whether appropriate living conditions would be provided for future occupiers with regard to privacy, outlook, noise and disturbance, daylight and sunlight, odour and outdoor space
  • Whether the proposed development provides an appropriate mix of housing with regard to the local development strategy
  • Whether the proposed development would encourage the use of a range of transport options, with regard to cycle storage provision
  • Whether the proposed development would make appropriate provision for affordable housing
  • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of nearby listed buildings and Market Place/London Street Conservation Area (CA)

What decided it

The unacceptable harm to living conditions of both existing occupiers at St Giles Court and No 34-38, and the failure to provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers, combined with failures on housing mix, cycle storage and affordable housing, collectively outweigh the modest benefits of housing supply.

The modest benefits of housing supply contribution and efficient land use were outweighed by significant harm to living conditions of existing and future occupiers, moderate harm from lack of housing mix and transport options, and failure to provide affordable housing.

Plan policies cited: Policy CC8, Policy EN16, Policy CC5, Policy H2, Policy RC9, Policy H9, Policy CC7, Policy TR5, Policy H3, Policy CC9, Policy EN1, Policy CR2, Policy H10, Policy EN14

Judgments cited: Choiceplace Properties Limited v SoS (2021)

The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.