Appeal 6000444
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
4 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
Erection of a single storey front extension at [site address] . Application Ref: P/20845/000
Section 02
Issue – effect on the character and appearance of the area
In terms of its scale, roof form and design detailing, the proposed development would have a similar appearance to the single-storey projection on the front of the adjoining house at number [address] (no. 54). Moreover, the front of the extension would be in general alignment with the fronts of the porches of the neighbouring houses at numbers 58, 60, and [address]. For these reasons, and because it would be stepped back from the front of the house at number 54, the extension would not be harmfully prominent or incongruous in relation to nearby development.
Even though it would extend across the full width of the 2-storey terraced house on the appeal site, the modest scale and low height of the proposed development mean it would read as a subservient addition to the original house. Consequently, and even if the development would not accord with all the guidelines set out in the Council’s Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document1, it would read as a compatible and sensitive addition to the original house.
For these reasons, the development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, and in this respect, it would accord with the development plan policies cited on the decision notice.
Section 03
Conclusion
The proposal complies with the development plan as a whole, and nothing indicates a decision otherwise.
Section 04
Conditions
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 1 Slough Borough Council – Slough Local Development Framework – Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document – [name] 2010
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no’s: Location Plan produced 03 June 2025, 2518 EX01, 2518 PR02, and 2518 PR03. Reason: Certainty
The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Reason: Protect character and appearance of area.
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 2706No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 8 October 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 30 September 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6000444
- Application reference
- P/20845/000
- 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
- Not recorded
- Appeal reason
- refused
- Type detail
- Householder
- Jurisdiction
- No Jurisdiction Associated
- Link status
- Not recorded
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- 0 hectares
- Floor space
- 158 m²
- Number of residences
- Not recorded
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Yes
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 29 July 2025
- Valid date
- 29 July 2025
- Start date
- 20 August 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 28 July 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 8 October 2025
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- Not recorded
- Bespoke
- Not recorded
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- No
- 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
- Back Office
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 77631
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21