Appeal 3305564
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
5 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: Demolition of the existing garage. Construction of a single storey front extension, part single storey, part two storey side and rear extension, raising and enlarging the existing roof, dormer windows in the rear roof slope, roof lights to the front and rear roof slopes.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed extensions to the dwelling, No 26, on the street scene in this part of [address].
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal dwelling, No. [site address] , is a small hipped roofed detached house on a fairly narrow plot. The appeal project is intended to substantially enlarge the dwelling following removal of the single garage at the side of the house close to the neighbouring dwelling, No. 24.
I agree with the Appellant ,[name], that the design and finishes of the resulting enlarged dwelling would be generally sympathetic to those of the existing house and its immediate neighbours. The side extension when seen from the road would also be acceptably subordinate to the main house and be built with matching brickwork, rendered finish and have matching roof tiles. The considerable increase in the size of the house caused in part by the expansion of the volume of the roof, resulting in a flat section on top, (described by the Council as a flat crown measuring 3.6 metres deep), would not easily be seen from directly in front of the house. However, this substantial increase in the bulk of the house could be seen from the sides.
Although the widened house would, in isolation, look well proportioned, the side extension would fill the gap to No. 24 next door to the east almost completely. The enlarged house would occupy the entire width of the plot. The pattern of gaps between houses of the approximate width of a single car garage along this part of the road would here be replaced by an untypical and unfortunate terracing effect. I consider that would be substantially detrimental to the street scene. It would also fail to meet the exhortations in the Slough Local Development Framework, [name], Supplementary Planning Document, [name] 2010 at EX11, which states that two storey/first floor side extensions should be set off the side boundary by a minimum of 1 metre. Also, para. 5.4 says in cases where a two storey/first floor side extension exists and is built up to the boundary, planning applications for similar extensions on the neighbouring property will not normally be permitted unless a minimum 2m gap can be achieved at first floor level between the two extended properties. That is not achieved in this instance.
I agree with the Council’s conclusion that [name] project at his home would therefore not be visually compatible with the existing dwelling or the character and appearance of the immediate surrounding area.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, and taking into account all other matters raised, 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 19331No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 27 January 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 9 January 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3305564
- Application reference
- P/19514/002
- 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
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- 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
- 140 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- 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
- 20 August 2022
- Valid date
- 20 August 2022
- Start date
- 28 November 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 26 July 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 27 January 2023
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
- 27191
- 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