Single storey front porch with WC

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: 4 November 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000798 8 Shortfern, Slough SL2 5SL • 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 Mrs Carol Foster against the decision of Slough Borough Council. • The application Ref is P/20820/000. • The development proposed is described on the application form as, “Single storey front porch with WC”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for construction of a single storey front porch with WC at 8 Shortfern, Slough, SL2 5SL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P/20820/000, and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location And Block Plan Proposed (Drawing No. ABGS PL-101), Floor Plans And Elevations (Drawing No. CSWS PL-201). 3) The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. 4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the measures specified in section 4 (Mitigation Measures) of the submitted Flood Risk Assessment. The measures implemented shall be retained thereafter. Preliminary Matter 2. A revised description of development was agreed in writing by the Council and the appellant, and the application was determined on that basis. This has been reflected in the formal decision, above. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises 8 Shortfern (No 8), a 2-storey end-of-terrace dwelling situated at the end of a run of similarly-designed modestly-sized properties, in a predominantly residential area. No 8 benefits from an existing porch. The proposed development seeks to demolish this porch, and to construct a single- Appeal Decision 6000798 2 storey front porch with WC in its place. Policy EX1 of the SPD1 provides that front extensions shall be single storey and normally restricted to front porches only. As a single-storey front porch, the proposed development would reflect these characteristics. 5. Policy EX2 of the SPD provides that, amongst other things, front extensions should have a maximum depth of 1.5 metres for terraced houses. Paragraph 1.2.7 of the SPD makes clear that each planning application will be judged on its own individual merits. In this case, the proposed development would exceed this depth, but only by a marginal amount. Its depth would be similar to the existing porch and it would not protrude excessively from No 8’s front elevation. Its mono-pitched roof would be suitably positioned below No 8’s upper-floor windows. Much of No 8’s front elevation would remain visible in the street scene. As such, even though its footprint would be greater than the existing porch, its scale and massing would be proportionate with No 8. Furthermore, its materials would match those existing, thereby ensuring that the appearance of No 8 would be respected. 6. Moreover, its scale and massing would be broadly comparable with the existing porch at 4 Shortfern (No 4), located a short distance from the site. Another porch is present at 5 Shortfern, which whilst smaller than the porch at No 4, due to its height and depth is a noticeable feature in the street scene. Although the Council has raised concerns relating to the planning history of these existing porches, they are established features in the street scene. I also observed numerous front porches of a considerable size and scale on Knolton Way, many of which are visible from Shortfern near the site. Hence, the proposed development would respect the character of the street scene and the design and appearance of the original house, as required by paragraph 3.2 of the SPD. 7. I therefore find that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would comply with Core Policy 8 of the Core Strategy2 and with Policies H15, EN1, and EN2 of the Slough Local Plan (adopted 2004) which collectively provide that, amongst other things, all development in the Borough shall be of a high quality design. Conditions 8. I have considered the need for conditions against the advice on conditions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). 9. Conditions are necessary, in the interests of clarity and enforceability, setting out the timescale for the commencement of development (condition 1) and the approved plans (condition 2), respectively. A condition is necessary controlling external materials to ensure that the proposed development would have an acceptable appearance (condition 3). A condition is necessary requiring that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the proposed mitigation measures detailed in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment, to ensure that the proposed development does not increase flood risk elsewhere (condition 4). 10. As this appeal relates to a householder application, the biodiversity gain condition is not applicable. 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 6000798 3 Conclusion 11. 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 allowed. Alexander O’Doherty INSPECTOR