Alterations to former bungalow

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 April 2026 by P B Jarvis DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004839 96a Upton Road, Slough SL1 2AW • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Manpreet Khokar against the decision of Slough Borough Council. • The application Ref. is P/12464/014. • The development is alterations to former bungalow. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alterations to former bungalow at 96a Upton Road, Slough SL1 2AW in accordance with the terms of application ref: P/12464/014 and subject to the following conditions: 1) This permission relates to the following approved plans: 1:1250 location plan, UTD-1001 Rev. D1 (pre-existing ground floor plan), UTD-1002 Rev. D1 (pre- existing first floor plan), UTD-1003 Rev. D1 (pre-existing roof plan), UTD-1004 Rev. D1 (existing ground floor plan), UTD-1005 Rev. D1 (existing first floor plan), UTD-1006 Rev. D1 (existing loft plan), UTD-1007 Rev. D1 (existing roof plan), UTD-1008 Rev. D1 (pre-existing and existing front elevation), UTD-1009 Rev. D1 (pre-existing and existing rear elevations), UTD-1010 Rev. D1 Rev. D1 (pre-existing and existing side elevation), UTD-1011 Rev. D1 (pre-existing and existing side elevation), UTD-1012 Rev. D1 (proposed block plan and location plan). 2) Notwithstanding the terms and provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no first floor windows, other than those hereby approved, shall be formed in the flank elevations of the development. 3) The first-floor window in the western flank elevation of the development serving the landing hereby approved shall be glazed with obscure glass and any opening shall be at a high level (1.8m above internal floor height) only. 4) Notwithstanding the terms and provisions of Class B to Part 1 of Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no addition or alteration to the roof shall be undertaken. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the street scene. Appeal Decision 6004839 2 Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises a two-storey dwelling of rendered elevations with slate covered deep hipped roof with small central crown roof. It lies along a residential road which contains a variety of sizes and styles of dwellings. To the east of the appeal site is a row of two storey modest cottages. To the west is a pair of traditional semi-detached dwellings and opposite the site are a couple of modern detached dwellings. 4. The appeal site formerly contained a chalet bungalow of traditional design with steep hipped tiled roof. Permission was granted in 2023 for various extensions including modification of the roof to create habitable accommodation within the roofspace (the 2023 scheme).1 However, the extensions and alterations to the original dwelling that have been undertaken and for which permission is now sought through this appeal do not accord with this approved scheme. The differences include a revised main roof, larger windows and front porch of different design and higher roof over the rear two storey extension. 5. The departures from the approved 2023 scheme have resulted in a building of somewhat more modern appearance incorporating flat roofs to the front porch and windows with square bays. The windows are also greater in size with larger panes emphasising this more modern approach with the bay window at first floor set into the eaves and a large off-set rooflight. 6. Whilst this has resulted in a building which contrasts with its immediate neighbours which are of more traditional appearance, it does not jar unacceptably with them. These adjoining dwelling themselves contain some flat roofed elements with others sited further from the appeal site also having a more modern appearance. The large porch is slightly over-sized and has a rather awkward junction with the ground floor bay window, but this has a fairly minor impact on its overall appearance and that of that of the wider street scene. The first-floor window is only marginally set into the eaves and consists of individual vertical panes reflecting the appearance of the more traditional by windows of nearby dwellings. The roof light is large in size, but neither this element nor the bay windows appear incongruous as part of the overall modern design approach nor do they unacceptably detract from the wider street scene which contains dwellings of varied age, design and appearance. 7. The roof of the two-storey rear extension is of the same ridge height as the main roof resulting in a long flank elevation with continuous height of roof located on the eastern site boundary extending deep into the site. However, it does not appear unduly out of scale notwithstanding that it can be seen within the Upton Road street scene due to the open gap comprising the side garden of the adjoining dwelling at number 94. Furthermore, given the set back of the dwelling within the street scene, this element is not dominant within it nor due to the gap does it dominate the adjoining dwelling. 8. The rear of the dwelling can be seen from Melrose Gardens to the rear (north) of the site. The main difference compared to the 2023 scheme is the increased bulk of roof over the two-storey rear extension, but this additional bulk is seen against the main roof and does not appear unduly dominating or incongruous. 1 LPA ref: P/12464/011 approved 2 November 2023 Appeal Decision 6004839 3 9. Overall, whilst the dwelling appears of greater bulk compared to the 2023 scheme it is not overly dominant as viewed within the street scene or wider area. The overall design approach is overtly more modern and whilst some elements appear over- sized, these nevertheless combine to provide a holistic approach which overall does not unacceptably detract from the street scene and in fact adds to the variety of styles apparent within it. 10. As such the development does not have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area. It complies with Policy 8 of the Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2008-2026 DPD (2008) and Policies H15, EN1 and EN2 of the Local Plan (2004) which seek sustainable, high-quality design that improves the quality of the environment and respects and is compatible with its surroundings. 11. Whilst not entirely consistent with the Council’s Residential Extensions Guidelines SPD (2010) which seeks to ensure that extensions reflect the form, materials and design of the original dwelling, the 2023 scheme provides a fall-back position in this instance. Whilst the appeal scheme adopts a more modern, holistic approach, that is not in itself inappropriate and for the reasons set out above is compatible with the character of the area. 12. In addition, the development would be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks good design that functions well and is sympathetic to local character. Conditions 13. As the development has already been completed there is no need for a standard time condition. The Council has suggested a number of conditions which have been reviewed in the context of Framework paragraph 57 and the wording of which has been amended accordingly. A condition to refer to the approved plans is necessary in the interests of clarity and proper planning. I also agree that conditions to ensure that obscure glazing is used in the landing window in the flank elevation and that no further first floor windows are inserted in the flank elevations of the development are necessary to prevent overlooking and to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining properties. The Council has also suggested a condition to restrict further roof additions or alterations. Given the extent of increase in roof bulk and height that has been undertaken I agree that the effect of any further additions to the roof should be controlled so as to enable an assessment on the character of the area and living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Conclusion 14. I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. P B Jarvis INSPECTOR