Slough Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Slough?
See which parking, traffic and servicing facts inspectors accepted or criticised in selected Slough examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 15 of 82
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 11
- of 15 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
Slough parking, traffic and servicing evidence
The selected examples contain a higher share of allowed appeals than the matched local set. Appeal 89555 gives only a conclusion and also covers living conditions, so its earlier highway analysis is unavailable.
Counted against appeals
Traffic flow and parking shortfalls
Dropped kerb harmed traffic flow
The Inspector concluded that the dropped kerb would adversely affect traffic flow and highway safety.
Parking fell short for intensified use
The roof extension was found to leave inadequate parking for intensified use and harm highway safety.
Helped or needed
Parking and servicing that did not worsen safety
One lost space was not significant
Parking at No 9 reflected many local properties, and the Inspector found it sufficient for its location.
Shop extension added no material demand
The larger shop was not expected to materially change parking demand, servicing or road safety.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your proposal reduce parking for a more intensive use?
- Could its access obstruct traffic flow at busy times?
- Will added floorspace change parking demand, servicing or emergency access?
The examples cover different proposals, and appeal 89555 supplies only a conclusion, not its highway analysis. 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
24 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a front porch and canopy.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effects of the development upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area, and upon car parking and highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I recognise that excessive amounts of on-street parking within residential areas can lead to indiscriminate and irresponsible parking. This in turn can lead to problems associated with highway safety issues, amenity, and harm to the visual environment. But in this instance, based upon the evidence before me and upon my own observations, I am not persuaded that the loss of one potential off-street parking space at No 9 has contributed significantly to any of these circumstances. The nature of the parking provision that now exists at No 9 merely reflects circumstances repeated over at many properties within the locality. On balance therefore, notwithstanding a shortfall in parking when judged against the Council’s standards, I am satisfied that there is sufficient parking at No 9 appropriate to its location in accord with the requirements of [name] H15 and T2.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
3 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey front and side ground floor extension to the existing commercial shopfront
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on, firstly, the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and, secondly, highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Saved Policy T2 of the Local Plan says that additional on-site car parking provision will only be required where this is needed to overcome road safety problems, protect the amenities and operational requirements of adjoining users, and ensure that access can be obtained for deliveries and emergency vehicles. The Framework states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. On the basis of what I have read and seen, I consider the increase in the size of the retail unit that would arise from the proposed extension would not lead to a material change to parking demand in the area, servicing, or any material change in road safety. Thus, there is not a need for additional on-site car parking provision or for deliveries/servicing. On the second main issue I conclude that the proposed development would not be harmful to highway safety.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
5 May 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the installation of a dropped kerb.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the free flow of traffic and highway safety.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the free flow of traffic and cause significant detriment to highway safety. Consequently, it would not comply with Core Policy 7 of the Council’s Core Strategy 2006-2026 which includes that development should improve road safety. 1 Monday to Friday 07:00 to 10:00 and 15:00 to 19:00
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
29 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a part retrospective application for the part two storey, part single storey rear extension, 3no. Air Heat Pumps and revised fenestration on all elevations. Proposed change of use from C3 to C4, creation of communal garden and removal of outbuilding.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: (i) the effect of the proposed parking arrangements on highway safety; (ii) the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of future occupiers, and those of existing occupiers nearby; (iii) whether the development would be in a suitable location, taking account of the Council’s spatial strategy; and (iv) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have concluded that there would be material harm to the living conditions of future occupiers, and the potential for harm in relation to highway safety. The support for the principle of development within the Framework, including making efficient use of land, is countered by the importance it places on the provision of development that provides good living conditions and ensures that there would not be unacceptable impacts in relation to highway safety. In this instance, the combined harm would be significant and enduring.
Paragraph 29 · Source pages 4, 5
2 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
construction of a roof extension to create habitable accommodation with 2no. dormers and internal alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to privacy, outlook, sunlight and daylight, • the effect of the proposal on highway safety with regard to whether adequate car parking provision would be provided; and • whether adequate living conditions would be provided for future occupiers with regard to private amenity space.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would fail to provide adequate parking provision for the intensified use of the dwelling and would be likely to result in harm to highway safety. As such, it conflicts with Policy H15 and T2 of the LP and Core Policy 7 of the Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document adopted 16 December 2008. These policies seek to ensure appropriate parking provision and to prevent development that would result in harm to highway safety or residential amenity.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3