Appeal 6000461

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission [name]/13960/006 for construction of a single storey rear extension at [site address] [postcode] granted on 10 June 2025 by Slough Borough Council, is varied by deleting condition No 6.

Paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that planning conditions should only be imposed where they meet various tests. In this case, the main issue is whether the disputed condition is necessary.

The Council’s decision notice states the planning permission is granted in accordance with the planning application and accompanying plans. Also, condition 2 requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the specified drawing. Therefore, condition 6 is not needed to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the application.

The second part of the reason for the disputed condition refers to Policy T2 of the Local Plan for Slough adopted 2004 (the LP). This policy states that parking will be restricted to a maximum level within developments that attract an increase in trips. The proposed extension would allow an existing kitchen and dining room to be used as an additional bedroom and so it may result in more parking associated with the property. However, the front garden area is hard surfaced and of a shape and size to accommodate 3 vehicles. The Council officer’s report on the planning application states that this is the maximum parking provision that is required and so the development would accord with LP policy T2 in these regards.

The disputed condition prevents the sub-division of the property. However, in light of section 55(3)(a) of the Act, this would require planning permission in any event and so condition 6 is unnecessary in these respects.

Condition 6 also prevents the use of the dwelling as a house in multiple occupation (HMO). Such a change of use is defined as permitted development under the terms of Article 3(1) and Class L of Part 3, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended). The disputed condition could be seen to remove this permitted development right. It is noteworthy that the Planning Practice Guidance says conditions that restrict the future use of permitted development rights may not pass the test of reasonableness or necessity1.

There is little information before me on any parking standards the Council would apply in respect of HMOs. Consequently, there is no substantive evidence that a change in use of the appeal property to a HMO would generate a greater demand for parking compared to it being used as a single household residence. In any event, it seems likely that any increase in parking demand as a result of the property being used as a HMO would be limited given the size of the property, the potential number of occupiers and the amount of on-site parking space.

Moreover, it is unclear how any extra parking would be unacceptable as LP policy T2 does not preclude development that would lead to street parking. Instead, the last part of the policy seeks to ensure residential development includes parking space at a level to overcome road safety problems, to protect the amenities of adjoining residents and to avoid an adverse visual impact. Any street parking associated with the appeal property being used as a HMO would be unlawful on Yew Tree Road as parking is prohibited by double yellow lines on both sides of the highway. Parking is allowed on other nearby streets but there is little evidence to indicate that roadside parking connected with a HMO use of the appeal property would cause any of the potential problems identified under LP policy T2.

Therefore, I conclude the disputed condition is unnecessary in order to ensure the appeal development would be acceptable when assessed against LP policy T2. Also, it is not required for any other reason. Consequently, the condition does not meet the tests as set out in the Framework.

The planning application leading to this appeal attracted concerns from an interested party. However, the Council found the development to be acceptable in all respects and granted planning permission. I find no reason to disagree with the Council on the overall acceptability of the proposed development.

For the above reasons, I conclude the appeal should succeed.