Appeal 3288543
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
6 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
the erection of a single storey rear extension (which would extend beyond the rear wall of the original house by 6m, with a maximum height of 3.21m and an eaves height of 3m.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the amenity or living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.
Section 04
Background
The appeal site comprises a semi-detached property lying in a residential area of mainly similar properties. It is of two storey form although at the time of my visit a large dormer window in the rear roof slope of the property was under construction.
Section 05
Effect on living conditions
In assessing this issue I have had regard to the Council’s Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2010. However, as this was adopted prior to the Government’s relaxation of ‘permitted development’ this limits the weight that can be given to its provisions.
The proposal is to extend out 6m with a structure 3m high at the eaves. This exceeds the guidance in the SPD which limits rear extensions at a semi-detached property to 4.25m. However, I give more weight to the actual impact the addition would cause.
In terms of the relationship with the neighbouring property No. 27 this is separated from the host property by a narrow pedestrian access alongside both houses. No.27 already appears to have been extended at the rear and there is also a 1.8m high fence (presently covered with ivy) along the party boundary. Given these factors I am satisfied that the proposed extension would not have an adverse effect on the outlook from this property or harm the living conditions of the occupiers.
In relation to the adjoining semi No.31 the affect here would be more profound. Again there is a 1.8m fence along this party boundary and although this is covered in ivy and creepers to well above this height, such vegetation could not be retained with the construction of the proposed extension.
Having regard to the degree of the projection of the flank wall of the extension almost on the party boundary and the height of the structure, the physical and visual impact of the solid structure would have an overbearing and dominating effect on the outlook of No.31. Moreover as the adjoining property of No.33 also appears to have been extended at the rear, the further extension would enclose the main private outlook from the rear of No.31 and the enjoyment of its garden to an unacceptable degree. On this basis I find that the proposal conflicts with the provisions of Core Policy 8 which in part seeks to ensure that new development respects the amenities of adjoining occupiers.
This harm and conflict with the relevant policy in the development plan is not outweighed by any other factor which indicates that prior approval should not be granted.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 447No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 27 May 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 24 May 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3288543
- Application reference
- Y/17291/004
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Slough Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000039
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 3. Refused prior approval of permitted development rights
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Reserved Matters
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 1
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 7 December 2021
- Valid date
- 7 December 2021
- Start date
- 15 March 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 November 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 27 May 2022
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 15834
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21