Double Storey side and part rear extension

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: 17 November 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000772 20 Bridge Close, Slough SL1 5JF • 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 Mr G Singh against the decision of Slough Borough Council. • The application Ref is P/20579/002. • The development proposed is described on the application form as, “Double Storey side and part rear extension”. 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 20 Bridge Close (No 20), a modestly-sized 2-storey semi-detached dwelling of brick construction with a pitched tiled roof, situated in a predominantly residential area. No 20 benefits from a planning permission for the construction of a front porch, part single-storey part 2-story side extension, part single-storey part 2-storey rear extension and loft conversion with hip-to-gable end, rear dormer and 3 front roof lights1, and a grant of prior approval for the erection of a single storey rear extension2. The Council have stated that construction works have started as per these planning approvals. Construction works at No 20 were ongoing at the time of my site visit. 4. The proposed 2-storey side extension would incorporate a room housing a WC to the front of the dwelling. The roof of this room would jut above the horizontal plane of the canopy which runs across the remainder of No 20’s front elevation, resulting in a disjointed appearance. Conflict would arise with DP3 of the SPD3 which provides that, amongst other things, extensions should be designed to be in proportion to the original house. 5. Although some dwellings along Bridge Close have been extended, gaps between buildings remain, which serve to break up the mass of built form in the area. The Council have calculated that the proposed 2-storey side extension would be located no more than approximately 0.5 metres from the side boundary. This figure has not been disputed by the appellant. The proposed development would 1 Ref P/20579/000 2 Ref Y/20579/001 3 Slough Local Development Framework Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2010) Appeal Decision 6000772 2 accordingly conflict with EX11 of the SPD which provides that 2-storey / first floor side extensions should be set off the side boundary by a minimum of 1 metre. The resulting minimal gap between No 20 and the side elevation of 22 Bridge Close would create a near-terracing effect, which paragraph 5.3 of the SPD seeks to avoid. In combination, whilst the gable end wall would match No 20’s existing end wall, the above-mentioned factors would undermine No 20’s otherwise positive visual contribution to the street scene. 6. The Council have calculated that the width of the proposed first-floor rear extension would be approximately 80% of the width of No 20 as a whole. This figure has not been disputed by the appellant. Taking account of its maximum height, it would accordingly constitute a particularly large addition to the rear of No 20. It would not be subordinate to the original dwelling, as required by EX26 of the SPD. 7. Furthermore, the proposed rear dormer would be larger in comparison with that previously approved. It would sit immediately above the eaves and would extend very close to No 20’s main ridge. Due to its height and width, it would occupy the majority of No 20’s rear roof slope. Hence, although it would not extend beyond No 20’s footprint, it would nevertheless conflict with EX34 of the SPD which provides that, amongst other things, dormer windows should be in proportion with the size of the original roof. 8. 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. 9. I observed that the 2-storey side extension at 16 Bridge Close (No 16) is noticeably set-back from No 16’s front elevation, which has reduced its prominence in the street scene. It contrasts with the proposed development in this respect, which would not incorporate such a set-back. The 2-storey side extensions referred to in Appendix 3 of the Appeal Statement also appear to incorporate set-backs from their respective front elevations (as far as can be ascertained in the absence of plans detailing the extent of the works undertaken). As none of these examples are directly comparable with the proposed development they do not change my findings on this main issue. 10. 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 Strategy4 which provides that, amongst other things, all development will be of a high quality design. 11. The proposed development would conflict 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, and with part f) Policy EN1 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals are required to reflect 4 Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006 – 2026 Development Plan Document (adopted 2008) Appeal Decision 6000772 3 a high standard of design and must be compatible with and / or improve their surroundings in terms of building form and design. The proposed development would also conflict 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 12. 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. Core Strategy Policy CS1.B, referenced by the appellant, does not exist in the Slough Core Strategy. None of these matters alters my findings on the main issue above. Other Considerations and Planning Balance 13. I note the assertion that the proposed development would fall within the scope of permitted development. However, few details have been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development when considered as a whole would fall within the allowances conferred by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). I note the intention to use high quality energy efficient materials. However, there is no evidence to suggest that a less harmful scheme could not achieve the same aims. The proposed development would provide enhanced living accommodation which would benefit the current and future occupiers of No 20. This would however be mainly a private benefit. 14. Little weight is given to these matters in support of the proposed development. Overall, taking account of the fundamental requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that high quality places should be created, none of the material considerations relevant to this appeal indicate that the appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Conclusion 15. 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