Construction of a roof extension to create habitable accommodation with 2no

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 March 2026 by Simon J Cater MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6003770 1A Beech Road, Slough SL3 7DQ • 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 Maryam Madani against the decision of Slough Borough Council • The application Ref is P/17465/001. • The development is construction of a roof extension to create habitable accommodation with 2no. dormers and internal alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The description of development in the Council’s decision notice more accurately reflects the proposal. I have therefore adopted that description. Main Issues 3. 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. Reasons Living conditions of neighbouring occupiers 4. The appeal property is a single‑storey bungalow positioned on a constrained plot to the rear of dwellings fronting Langley Road. It is accessed from Beech Road and sits within a tight residential grain characterised by narrow gaps between properties and close relationships between buildings and garden areas. 5. Whilst Beech Road itself comprises mainly two‑storey dwellings, the appeal site is notably lower in scale, being a single storey bungalow, and occupies a particularly sensitive position, with its southern boundary directly abutting the rear gardens of properties on Langley Road, including Nos. 131 and 133. Appeal Decision 6003770 2 6. The proposal seeks to introduce a roof extension with an increased ridge height and two side dormers to create additional habitable accommodation. This would materially increase the scale and bulk of the building at roof level, altering its established low‑profile form. In this context, where separation distances are limited and neighbouring properties are closely arranged, changes to height and massing would be readily perceived from adjacent dwellings and their private outdoor spaces. 7. In terms of outlook and overbearing effects, the increased roof bulk would be most keenly experienced from the rear of properties on Langley Road, particularly No. 133. From my site visit, it was evident that these properties already have a close relationship with the appeal site, and the proposed roof form would introduce a more visually intrusive element when viewed from rear windows and gardens. The additional height and massing would give rise to a greater sense of enclosure, eroding the currently more modest scale of development that helps to limit the impact of the existing dwelling. 8. Regarding daylight and sunlight, the appellant maintains that the proposal would not result in harm, citing separation distances and the orientation of the site. However, no detailed assessment has been submitted to demonstrate that the increased roof height and dormer structures would not adversely affect light to neighbouring properties. From my site visit, it was apparent that existing built form already contributes to shading to windows serving neighbouring dwellings, including at No. 1 Beech Road. In this context, the introduction of additional bulk at roof level would be likely to worsen the level of enclosure and reduce the availability of daylight to those windows. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I am not persuaded that the proposal would safeguard neighbouring daylight and sunlight to an acceptable degree. 9. Turning to privacy, while the submitted plans indicate that the dormer windows would be obscure glazed, this does not fully address the impact arising from their position and prominence. Given the close back‑to‑back and angled relationships between the appeal site and neighbouring gardens on Langley Road, the dormer elements would introduce a perception of overlooking and a greater sense of being observed, even if direct views were restricted. This would result in harm to the privacy of neighbouring occupiers. 10. Overall, I find that the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, including harm to outlook, privacy, sunlight and daylight. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies H15 and EN1 of The Local Plan for Slough Adopted 22 March 2004 (LP) which seeks to ensure a high standard of design and compatibility with surrounding development, and to ensure that proposals do not result in a significant adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining occupiers. Highway safety with regard to car parking provision 11. The appeal site is accessed from Beech Road, a residential street with no parking restrictions. From my site visit, I observed that on‑street parking occurs along Beech Road, including instances of vehicles parked partially on the footway. 12. The existing dwelling provides a single off‑street parking space within the site. The proposal would introduce additional habitable accommodation, with the potential to Appeal Decision 6003770 3 intensify the use of the dwelling. However, no additional off‑street parking provision is proposed. Any increase in parking demand arising from the development would therefore be likely to be accommodated on the surrounding highway. 13. While the appellant states that there is sufficient on‑street parking available, my site observations indicate that on‑street parking is already a regular feature of Beech Road, including close to the junction and along pedestrian routes. In these circumstances, additional parking associated with the proposal would be likely to increase pressure on the available highway space. This would raise the potential for obstruction of footways, inconvenience to pedestrians, and reduced visibility for drivers, particularly in the vicinity of the junction. 14. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the existing level of parking provision would remain adequate following the development, or that any additional on‑street parking would not give rise to highway safety concerns. In the absence of such evidence and having regard to the on‑street parking conditions observed during my site visit, I am not persuaded that the proposal would avoid harm in this respect. 15. 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. Whether adequate living conditions would be provided for future occupiers 16. The appeal site contains a single dwelling with private outdoor space mainly arranged to the side, with an area to the front of the property. The proposal would increase the size of the dwelling and the amount of bedspace, to four bedrooms, thereby intensifying the use of the site. However, the level of private amenity space would remain unchanged. 17. Policy H15 of the LP requires extensions to maintain an appropriate level of rear garden amenity space, with Policy H14 requiring that adequacy is to be assessed having regard to the size of the dwelling and the likely household. The Council’s Residential Extensions Guidelines SPD provides quantitative guidance to assist this assessment, indicating that larger dwellings require proportionately larger usable garden areas, including a minimum retained garden depth of 15 metres for four‑bedroom dwellings. 18. The appellant contends that the site meets the Council’s amenity space standards when the front and side areas are considered together. However, my site visit confirmed that the area to the front of the dwelling functions primarily as access and parking and does not provide usable private amenity space capable of meeting the day‑to‑day needs of occupiers. In practice, the usable amenity space is therefore limited to the side garden area. 19. When considered in this way, the available amenity space would be modest relative to the increased bedspace proposed. As a result, the dwelling would not be supported by an adequate level of usable private outdoor space. Appeal Decision 6003770 4 20. I therefore conclude that the proposal would result in inadequate private amenity space for future occupiers, leading to substandard living conditions as a consequence of the intensified use of the site. It would conflict with Policies H14 and H15 of the LP which require that residential extensions maintain an appropriate level of rear garden amenity space, assessed in relation to the size of the dwelling and the needs of the likely household. Other Matters 21. I have had regard to the appellant’s personal circumstances and their desire to create additional accommodation, as well as the absence of neighbour representations. However, these factors do not outweigh the physical impacts arising from the proposal in this particular location. Conclusion 22. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Simon J Cater INSPECTOR