Construction of front porch, part single part double storey side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 May 2026 by E Street BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005991 4 Wood Lane, Cippenham Meadows, Slough SL1 9EA • 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 Harpal Sanghera against the decision of Slough Borough Council. • The application Ref is P/13613/007. • The development proposed is described as “construction of front porch, part single part double storey side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters & Main Issues 3. The description on the application form differs to the decision notice. I am satisfied that it describes the development applied for sufficiently accurately. In addition, Policy H14 of the Local Plan for Slough 2004 (LP) is concerned with amenity space which is not a contentious matter in the appeal. I have not therefore referred to it. 4. The Council has not expanded on their concerns with regard to inconsistent plans. They made an assessment and a determination based on them. I have no other reason to suggest that they are not sufficient to assess the scheme’s effects in terms of main issues. These are a) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; its effect on b) the openness of the Green Belt; and c) the character and appearance of the area; d) whether it would be or lead to an unacceptable risk of flooding; and e) if the scheme would be inappropriate development, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify it. Reasons for the Recommendation Inappropriate Development 5. Policy CP2 of the Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2008 (CS) addresses Green Belt matters. It explains that development will only be permitted in the Strategic Gap if it is essential to be there. There is no reference to extensions. Paragraph 154 (c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) Appeal Decision 6005991 2 explains that the extension or alteration of a building in the Green Belt might not be inappropriate development, provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. For the purposes of the Framework, the original building is as it existed on 1 July 1948 or if constructed after this date, as it was built originally. 6. No ‘original’ date has been provided. Some baseline plans indicate that it is essentially what is on site besides the garage which came later. This would be removed. The ground floor of the side extension would be built in its location. Whilst the garage can be considered a domestic adjunct for the purposes of Green Belt policy due to its location and use, it could not be a ‘trade off’ for calculation of new built form purposes as it is not original. I shall come onto any fallback positions advanced later. 7. The appeal scheme would add a single storey extension that would wrap around the side and rear. Whilst stepped in from the front, the new first floor would also warp around from the side and cover roughly half of the land take of the ground floor at the rear. The Council state that the whole of the scheme would, as near as makes limited difference, double the floor area of the original dwelling. I am inclined to agree on the basis of the plans. The first floor would add noticeable additional volume, bulk and mass. 8. Figures are only part of the story and there is no hard and fast definition of disproportionate. It is a matter of judgement. The first-floor side and rear extension would sit at a lower ridge and eaves height to the dwelling. Whilst there are attempts at subserviency, the scheme as a whole would still be adding a significant amount of additional built form. All works together would account for a substantially larger living space which would be visually obvious and effectively subsume the original building which is a relatively modest two storey semi-detached property. 9. Contextually speaking therefore, and taking into account what has gone before, I can draw no other conclusion than that the appeal scheme would represent disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. In so being, it would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, contrary to the position of the Framework thereon. Inappropriate development in the Green Belt is, by definition, harmful thereto. Openness 10. Openness is one of the key characteristics of the Green Belt. It has been held that it has a visual and spatial aspect. The latter can be taken to mean the absence of built form. The scheme would increase the size of the original dwelling significantly and in a number of places (outwards and upwards) where there is currently no built form. The dwelling is within a semi built up street scene, but the works would be highly noticeable therein owing mainly to the side additions. Notwithstanding their subservience in the design sense. The existing gap to the side as the dwelling presents to the non-adjoined neighbour would be lost. Taking all of this into account, there would be an unavoidably reducing effect on both aspects of the Green Belt’s openness. This would be in further conflict with the Framework. Character and Appearance 11. The appeal building is a relatively unaltered semi-detached dwelling at the end of a cul-de-sac. This mirrors the surrounding dwellings on the row which have a Appeal Decision 6005991 3 pleasant uniformity in their simple forward-facing elevations and consistent rooflines. Where there are gaps between the wider terraced sets, these are large and allow wider views to the rear of the road. These features in combination present a consistent and modest street scene which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. 12. The separate elements of the scheme would accord with the Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document 2010 (SPD). However, the combination of the works would wrap around the original dwelling, which would obscure the rear elevation and subsume the building. As a result, it would erode its simplistic unaltered nature and not appear subordinate when taken as a whole. Moreover, it would intrude into the side open gap and erode the open feel that is currently experienced between the semi-detached dwelling and the terraced set. 13. The proposals would thus cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, there would be conflict with Policies EN1 and H15 of the LP and Core Policy 8 of the CS. Together, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard. Flooding 14. Paragraph 176 of the Framework excludes householder development from the sequential and exception tests, but developments should nonetheless meet the requirements for site specific flood risk assessments. A Flood and Title Report and explanation was submitted. Core Policy 8 of the CS seeks to ensure that there is minimal risk of flooding, development will not impede the flow of floodwaters, increase the risk of flooding elsewhere or reduce the capacity of a floodplain. 15. The report is limited in its information. It states the site is within Flood Zone 2. The flood compliance details document includes some resilience and resistance measures. It does not acknowledge how it would reduce the impact on the adjoining land. Whilst it is only an extension to a dwelling, the scheme would still increase the built form, taking up flood storage capacity and increasing run off. This is notwithstanding the other flood resilience measures incorporated within the design. I appreciate that the development is small in scale, however it is no less important to establish any potential impact it would have in flood risk terms with the aims of the development plan in mind. 16. The Council ultimately determined the application based on the information submitted in what they considered acceptable at the time of validation. With this and the above in mind, the proposal would conflict with the aims of Core Policy 8 of the CS and the Framework which I have set out. Other Considerations 17. There are a number of extant schemes at play according to the planning history of the appeal site. There is a planning permission for a single storey side extension which would effectively replace and turn through 90 degrees the utility room and link. A larger rear extension has the benefit of prior approval to take the ground floor of the building out up to six metres. They would both have flat roofs. A proposed covered porch to the front and a full width dormer in the rear roof benefit from a lawful development certificate. Appeal Decision 6005991 4 18. With this in mind, the majority of the rear and some of the side extensions at ground floor would have a fallback worthy of some considerable weight since the proposals at appeal would not be materially different in their overall scale. That said, the new reception room at the side at ground floor and all of the new first floor are not accounted for in any fallback since the former would effectively replace what is a later and not original garage and the latter could not be allowed under the permitted development regime. These are substantial elements in and of themselves and, in the case of the first-floor sections at the side and rear, would also have pitched roofs which would add more built form to the original building. 19. I appreciate that there would be more bulk and mass within the lawful porch and dormer but there is nothing sufficiently compelling to suggest that these could not be built out as well as, rather than instead of, the appeal proposals. Those elements do not therefore represent a fallback position. A lawful position such as exists in this respect cannot be rescinded. 20. Taking all of these matters into account, what could feasibly exist as a combination of the extant approvals, lawful positions and the appeal scheme would be of considerable substance far and above the comparably modest size of the original building. Even discounting what could be ‘traded off’, the additional works would still be unacceptably substantial in context. They would add bulk, height and mass of a significant degree. As such, the perceived fallback positions would be worthy of limited to moderate weight at best. Conclusion and Recommendation 21. The proposal would be inappropriate development. It would reduce the Green Belt’s openness. Substantial weight should be given to these matters. There would be further harms arising out of the other main issues. The other considerations I have assessed would not be sufficient to clearly outweigh them. Such that the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist. The appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and material considerations, including the approach of the Framework, do not indicate a deviation therefrom. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. E Street APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 22. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR