Appeal 6004839
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
alterations to former bungalow.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alterations to former bungalow at [site address] in accordance with the terms of application ref: P/12464/014 and subject to the following conditions:
This permission relates to the following approved plans: 1:1250 location plan, UTD-1001 Rev. D1 (pre-existing ground floor plan), UTD-1002 Rev. D1 (pre-existing first floor plan), UTD-1003 Rev. D1 (pre-existing roof plan), UTD-1004 Rev. D1 (existing ground floor plan), UTD-1005 Rev. D1 (existing first floor plan), UTD-1006 Rev. D1 (existing loft plan), UTD-1007 Rev. D1 (existing roof plan), UTD-1008 Rev. D1 (pre-existing and existing front elevation), UTD-1009 Rev. D1 (pre-existing and existing rear elevations), UTD-1010 Rev. D1 Rev. D1 (pre-existing and existing side elevation), UTD-1011 Rev. D1 (pre-existing and existing side elevation), UTD-1012 Rev. D1 (proposed block plan and location plan).
Notwithstanding the terms and provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no first floor windows, other than those hereby approved, shall be formed in the flank elevations of the development.
The first-floor window in the western flank elevation of the development serving the landing hereby approved shall be glazed with obscure glass and any opening shall be at a high level (1.8m above internal floor height) only.
Notwithstanding the terms and provisions of Class B to Part 1 of Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no addition or alteration to the roof shall be undertaken.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the street scene.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a two-storey dwelling of rendered elevations with slate covered deep hipped roof with small central crown roof. It lies along a residential road which contains a variety of sizes and styles of dwellings. To the east of the appeal site is a row of two storey modest cottages. To the west is a pair of traditional semi-detached dwellings and opposite the site are a couple of modern detached dwellings.
The appeal site formerly contained a chalet bungalow of traditional design with steep hipped tiled roof. Permission was granted in 2023 for various extensions including modification of the roof to create habitable accommodation within the roofspace (the 2023 scheme).1 However, the extensions and alterations to the original dwelling that have been undertaken and for which permission is now sought through this appeal do not accord with this approved scheme. The differences include a revised main roof, larger windows and front porch of different design and higher roof over the rear two storey extension.
The departures from the approved 2023 scheme have resulted in a building of somewhat more modern appearance incorporating flat roofs to the front porch and windows with square bays. The windows are also greater in size with larger panes emphasising this more modern approach with the bay window at first floor set into the eaves and a large off-set rooflight.
Whilst this has resulted in a building which contrasts with its immediate neighbours which are of more traditional appearance, it does not jar unacceptably with them. These adjoining dwelling themselves contain some flat roofed elements with others sited further from the appeal site also having a more modern appearance. The large porch is slightly over-sized and has a rather awkward junction with the ground floor bay window, but this has a fairly minor impact on its overall appearance and that of that of the wider street scene. The first-floor window is only marginally set into the eaves and consists of individual vertical panes reflecting the appearance of the more traditional by windows of nearby dwellings. The roof light is large in size, but neither this element nor the bay windows appear incongruous as part of the overall modern design approach nor do they unacceptably detract from the wider street scene which contains dwellings of varied age, design and appearance.
The roof of the two-storey rear extension is of the same ridge height as the main roof resulting in a long flank elevation with continuous height of roof located on the eastern site boundary extending deep into the site. However, it does not appear unduly out of scale notwithstanding that it can be seen within the [address] street scene due to the open gap comprising the side garden of the adjoining dwelling at number 94. Furthermore, given the set back of the dwelling within the street scene, this element is not dominant within it nor due to the gap does it dominate the adjoining dwelling.
The rear of the dwelling can be seen from [address] to the rear (north) of the site. The main difference compared to the 2023 scheme is the increased bulk of roof over the two-storey rear extension, but this additional bulk is seen against the main roof and does not appear unduly dominating or incongruous. 1 LPA ref: P/12464/011 approved 2 November 2023
Overall, whilst the dwelling appears of greater bulk compared to the 2023 scheme it is not overly dominant as viewed within the street scene or wider area. The overall design approach is overtly more modern and whilst some elements appear over-sized, these nevertheless combine to provide a holistic approach which overall does not unacceptably detract from the street scene and in fact adds to the variety of styles apparent within it.
As such the development does not have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area. It complies with Policy 8 of the Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2008-2026 DPD (2008) and Policies H15, EN1 and EN2 of the Local Plan (2004) which seek sustainable, high-quality design that improves the quality of the environment and respects and is compatible with its surroundings.
Whilst not entirely consistent with the Council’s Residential Extensions Guidelines SPD (2010) which seeks to ensure that extensions reflect the form, materials and design of the original dwelling, the 2023 scheme provides a fall-back position in this instance. Whilst the appeal scheme adopts a more modern, holistic approach, that is not in itself inappropriate and for the reasons set out above is compatible with the character of the area.
In addition, the development would be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks good design that functions well and is sympathetic to local character.
Section 05
Conditions
As the development has already been completed there is no need for a standard time condition. The Council has suggested a number of conditions which have been reviewed in the context of Framework paragraph 57 and the wording of which has been amended accordingly. A condition to refer to the approved plans is necessary in the interests of clarity and proper planning. I also agree that conditions to ensure that obscure glazing is used in the landing window in the flank elevation and that no further first floor windows are inserted in the flank elevations of the development are necessary to prevent overlooking and to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining properties. The Council has also suggested a condition to restrict further roof additions or alterations. Given the extent of increase in roof bulk and height that has been undertaken I agree that the effect of any further additions to the roof should be controlled so as to enable an assessment on the character of the area and living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.
Section 06
Conclusion
I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
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 482No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 22 April 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 1 April 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6004839
- Application reference
- P/12464/014
- 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
- 140 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
- 9 February 2026
- Valid date
- 9 February 2026
- Start date
- 17 February 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 November 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 22 April 2026
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
- 87737
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21