Appeal 6001263

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and host property.

The appeal property occupies an end of terrace plot within a row of similarly designed dwellings. Its front elevation is perpendicular to [address] resulting in the rear and side elevations being in view from the street. Tall boundary hedges screen the rear and side elevations, with areas of private open space acting as a buffer between the dominant side elevations and the highway, creating a feeling of spaciousness and contributing to open views along [address]. This set back is generally consistent along the street, other than where the building line of No. [address] projects closer to the highway. The other side of [address] sees a line of small, terraced housing that front onto the highway.

The proposed side and rear extension would be substantial in scale, introducing a form of development that would exceed the design guidance set out in the Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document ([name] 2010) (REGSPD). Given the modest proportions of the appeal property, the proposed extension, by virtue of its large scale, would overwhelm the host building, appearing bulky and incongruous thus failing to remain subordinate to the original dwelling.

Further, by extending the building line up to the boundary, bringing built development close to the highway, the side extension would reduce the sense of openness and increase the visual prominence of the property within the street scene. Its proximity to the highway, combined with the perpendicular orientation of the terrace, would result in a harsh and domineering presence that would detract from the character of the area.

Extensions are a feature of the wider surrounding area, and it is acknowledged that No. [address] has a side and rear extension that projects further than the building line of the existing appeal property. However, a space between the boundary hedge and building line is retained, and its design, including its set-back, width and depth, ensures it remains a subordinate addition to the host property. These measures mitigate its dominating impact and maintain the character of the surrounding area.

The appellant has quoted other examples nearby. At [address], the property occupies an end of terrace plot and hosts an extension along the same roof and building line. However, space is retained adjacent to the property, and the context differs from the appeal site in terms of its frontage and relationship to the street. Similarly, [address] occupies a corner plot, however the extension is designed to remain subordinate to the host property and aligns with the terraced housing perpendicular to the plot. These examples are therefore not directly comparable to the appeal scheme. In any event, I have dealt with the appeal on its own merits.

For the reasons above, I conclude the proposal would result in harm to the host property and the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore in conflict with Core Policy 8 of the Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2006-2026) Development Plan Document, Policies H15, EN1 and EN2 of the The Local Plan for Slough (2004), and the guidance contained within the REGSPD. These policies and guidance, among other things, seek to ensure development responds to the local context of the area and host building, with extensions remaining subordinate to the host building. It would also be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

The appellant and Council refer to a previous planning application for a rear and side extension that was approved with conditions in May 2025. I have not been provided with any plans relating to this extension and the submitted drawings only reference a pre-application submission. In the absence of plans, I can only afford the extant permission limited weight. I have therefore assessed the appeal on its own merits.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.