Loft conversion with hip to gable and rear dormer, and front roof lights

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 October 2025 by Alexander O’Doherty LLB (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7 November 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000771 3 Cedar Way, Langley, Slough SL3 7JT • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mandeep Thind against the decision of Slough Borough Council. • The application Ref is P/08233/003. • The development proposed is described on the application form as, “Loft conversion with hip to gable and rear dormer, and front roof lights”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises 3 Cedar Way (No 3), a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling located in a predominantly residential area. No 3 benefits from off-street parking and a rear garden. An outbuilding is situated at the rear of the plot. The local area mainly consists of 2-storey detached and semi-detached dwellings where a shared set of design characteristics is evident, including an extensive use of brickwork and traditionally-styled pitched roofs. As is common with many of the semi- detached dwellings in the vicinity, the other half of the semi-detached pair, 1 Cedar Way (No 1), broadly mirrors the design of No 3, even taking account of previous extensions to No 3. 4. The proposed development would enlarge No 3 by changing the existing main hipped roof to a gable roof, and a box dormer would be formed on the rear roof slope. The proposed development would be centrally positioned within No 3’s roof and would be sited within No 3’s footprint. Nevertheless, the roof alterations formed by the introduction of the gable would add considerable bulk to No 3, particularly as the area created would rise up to No 3’s roof ridge and would span across much of the existing roof area on the front elevation. As such, this element of the proposed development would not be visually subordinate to No 3 as existing. Moreover, the degree of change to No 3 would be such that No 3 would no longer be reflective of No 1’s design. As a result, the semi-detached pair would appear imbalanced. Their positive contribution to the street scene would be undermined. 5. At the rear, the proposed box dormer would occupy the majority of the roof slope on which it would be positioned. It would extend very close to the ridge of the main Appeal Decision 6000771 2 roof. Hence, it would not comply with Policy EX34 of the SPD1 which provides that, amongst other things, dormer windows should be in proportion with the size of the original roof, including that a dormer must not occupy more than 50% of the width of the existing roof slope on which it sits. 6. I have had regard to the examples provided in Appendix 3 of the Appeal Statement. The appellant has referred to these developments as involving double storey side extensions with gable roofs. However, as no plans for these developments have been provided, the exact extent of the works undertaken is unclear. Nor has it been shown that these examples relate to major alterations to the main roof profile of the dwellings in question, as is proposed. As it has not been demonstrated that these examples are directly comparable with the proposed development, they do not change my findings on this main issue. 7. I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with part 2 a) of Core Policy 8 of the Core Strategy2 which provides that, amongst other things, all development will be of a high quality design, and with part b) of Policy H15 of the Slough Local Plan (adopted 2004) (Local Plan) which provides that, amongst other things, proposals for extensions to existing dwelling houses will only be permitted if they are of a high quality of design. 8. The proposed development would also conflict with part f) of Policy EN1 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals are required to reflect a high standard of design and must be compatible with and/or improve their surroundings in terms of building form and design, and with Policy EN2 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, proposals for extensions to existing buildings should be compatible with the scale, materials, form, design, fenestration, architectural style, layout and proportions of the original structure. Other Matters 9. The conduct of the Council during the processing of the planning application is not a matter that I can assess in the context of a planning appeal. Reference has been made to Core Strategy Policy CS1.B. This policy does not exist in the Slough Core Strategy. These matters do not change my findings on the main issue above. 10. Mention has been made of the potential exercise of permitted development rights. I have not been provided with details which provide assurance that the various conditions and limitations of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) would be met for any such development. In the absence of such an assessment, it has not been demonstrated that there would be real prospect that such development could take place. This is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the proposed development. Other Considerations and Planning Balance 11. The proposed development would provide enlarged living accommodation at No 3. However, as this would primarily be a private benefit it merits little weight in favour of the proposed development. 1 Slough Local Development Framework Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2010) 2 Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006 – 2026 Development Plan Document (adopted 2008) Appeal Decision 6000771 3 12. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) makes clear that the creation of high quality places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. The proposed development would not contribute towards this aspiration. Consequently, the limited benefits of the proposed development would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm identified on the main issue above. The relevant material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Alexander O’Doherty INSPECTOR