Slough Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Slough?
See which design details the selected examples discuss before you check your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 63 of 82
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 18
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 42
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 51
- of 63 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Slough LPA (51.508398, −0.586239). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Slough Borough Council appeal findings
Garage scale, side gaps and rear additions in Slough
A selected dismissed front-extension extract gives only a conclusion, not the Inspector's earlier reasoning.
Counted against appeals
Rear bulk and side gaps in Slough
Rear additions overwhelmed a modest house
At No 20, the rear additions overwhelmed the modest house. Matching materials and an earlier approved footprint did not cure the design harm.
A minimal first-floor break
The small visual break gave no relief between side extensions. A set-back and reduced height did not overcome their close proximity.
Harm is stated without reasons
For the front extension, the selected extract records harm to area character and appearance, but gives no earlier analysis.
Helped or needed
What helped the garage and outbuilding
The garage stayed subordinate
Its modest scale, boundary hedges, nearby garage and varied building lines supported the finding of no harm.
No stated reason for the outbuilding
The extract says the outbuilding would cause no harm and would not set a precedent, but it does not say why.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say your extension overwhelms the original house?
- Does it identify an inadequate first-floor visual gap?
- Does it address nearby garages, building lines or boundary hedges?
The front-extension and outbuilding extracts omit the earlier reasoning. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
2 examples
14 September 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of garage in front of house.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed garage would be subordinate in scale to the main house and fall below the 4 metre height restriction set out in the SPD. The front and side boundary hedges would reduce its visual impact and it would not appear out of place or dominant in the context of the garage at No 37 and the varied building lines nearby. Overall, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the host property or wider street scene and would comply with most of the requirements of Policies EX38, EX39 and EX43 of the SPD, Core Policy 8 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2008) and [name] EN1 and H15 of the Local Plan for Slough (2004) which seek to ensure that outbuildings are a suitable scale and do not detract from the appearance of the host house or have a significant adverse impact on the street scene.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
25 September 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
application for single storey detached outbuilding with flat roof for the use of Gym and [name].
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue relevant to this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, the development does not harm the character and appearance of the area and granting permission would not set a precedent for similar development. Consequently, the development would comply with Policies EN1, EN2 and H15 of The Local Plan for Slough and Core Policy 8 of the Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document. These expect development, amongst other matters, to achieve high-quality design having regard to matters such as, scale, height, massing/bulk, layout, siting, building form and design, visual impact and relationship to nearby properties.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
17 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as, “[name] side and part rear extension”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the proposed additions to the rear of No 20 would not be subordinate to its otherwise modest character, but rather would overwhelm its built form. So, although the footprint of the proposed development would not be larger than that previously approved and the proposed materials would match No 20 as existing, due to its design the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would not accord with DP1 of the SPD which provides that extensions should be in keeping with the original design of the house and its surroundings.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
26 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the construction of a single storey front extension (retrospective).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and would therefore conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. Whilst the provision of the extension would have some economic benefits for the local area and potentially improve the shopping experience for customers to some extent, the small-scale nature of the scheme means that any such benefits are likely to be limited. Accordingly, there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
20 December 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for the construction of a two-storey side extension and side extension to loft conversion.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would match the height of the neighbouring extension and extend up to the side boundary, where a minimal gap would be maintained between the built form. It is acknowledged that the extension has been proposed with a set back and down and the neighbouring dwelling is a property with an alternative siting, scale and design. However, the visual break at first floor is minimal and the difference in siting, scale and design would not sufficiently mitigate the close proximity of the two extensions. Consequently, the extension would fail to provide any visual relief at first floor, contrary to the existing pattern of development, where the visual spacing between dwellings creates a sense of space and is an important part of the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2