Hip to gable loft conversion with rear dormer
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Extensions
Character & Appearance
Policy Weight
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 21 May 2026
by K E Down MA(Oxon) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date:04 June 2026
Appeal Ref: 6008549
2 The Glen, Slough, SL3 7HP
• 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 S Sanghera against the decision of Slough Borough Council.
• The application Ref is P/00185/003.
• The development proposed is a hip to gable loft conversion with rear dormer.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a hip to gable loft
conversion with rear dormer at 2 The Glen, Slough, SL3 7HP in accordance with
the terms of the application, Ref P/00185/003, 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: Site plan, Block plan, 02/Gle/01, 02/Gle/02,
02/Gle/13.
3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the
development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing
building.
Main Issue
2. There is one main issue which is the effect of the proposed hip to gable conversion
and rear dormer on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the street
scene of The Glen and the surrounding area.
Reasons
3. The Glen is a quiet residential street of mainly traditional semi-detached houses.
There are some later infill dwellings and a number of detached houses. Older
dwellings were built with traditional hipped roofs and most of these are retained. In
some cases, two storey side extensions have been added. The newer dwellings
have both gabled and hipped roofs.
4. The appeal dwelling is a traditional semi-detached house on a large plot. It has an
existing two storey side extension and single and two storey rear extensions. Its
semi-detached pair has a similar side extension. The proposed hip to gable
conversion would be to the original roof. It would abut the existing side extension
Appeal Decision Ref: 6008549
2
which has a hipped roof. It would be slightly higher and set forward of the
extension, owing to the set down and set back character of the extension.
5. The proposed hip to gable alteration would leave the existing hipped two storey
side extension unaltered. There would thus be a visible join between the two
elements. The appellant has drawn my attention to a similar arrangement on a
comparable dwelling in a nearby street and I saw that there are others nearby. In
general, these create a satisfactory juxtaposition between the two elements, with
the hipped extension softening the effect of the gable end conversion. I consider
that the proposed development would have an equally acceptable effect on the
host dwelling.
6. The Council suggests that the proposed extension of the ridge at the appeal
dwelling would materially alter its original massing, form and design. However, the
original width of the dwelling would remain clearly discernible, owing to the set
down of the existing extension. Moreover, Nos 6 and 10 nearby already have side
extensions that have resulted in a similar extension to the ridge. The resultant
massing and form at the appeal dwelling would not be dissimilar. These other
examples differ from the appeal proposal in that the side extensions, whilst having
hipped roofs, are not set down or back from the original dwelling. In terms of
design, the ability to read the original width would thus be better preserved at the
appeal dwelling.
7. The Council’s Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning
Document, 2010, sets out in EX33 that alterations to a roof including changing its
shape will not normally be permitted. The explanatory text sets out that roofs form
an important part of the character of the original dwelling and alterations can be
highly visible in the street scene. I agree. However, whilst not visible from the
appeal property, there are several hip to gable conversions in The Glen on
dwellings where the adjoining dwelling remains hipped. These may have been
completed as permitted development, nevertheless, they contribute to the
established character of the street scene. Moreover, as reasoned above, the
proposed conversion, would be less stark than other examples nearby and would
not materially detract from the character of the original dwelling. In consequence, it
would not appear out of place in The Glen. In that context, I find the conflict with the
guidance in EX33 may be set aside in this case.
8. The Council is further concerned that the proposal would unbalance the semi-
detached pair but since there would be no change to the overall width of the
building or the building line of the façade, and the proposed gable roof form would
be tempered by the hip-roofed extension, the degree of unbalancing would be
limited and not appear out of place in the street scene.
9. The rear dormer would be set within the extended roof slope, well in from either
side, below the ridge and up from the eaves. Whilst large it would not appear
overwhelming. Although it would alter the relationship between the roof of the
existing two storey rear extension and the original dwelling, this would result in a
satisfactory arrangement that would be unseen from the street and masked from
the rear by the existing extension.
10. Overall, I consider that, despite the mix of roof forms, the careful design would
result in an acceptable juxtaposition between them, such that the dwelling retained
Appeal Decision Ref: 6008549
3
its original character, and its appearance would be sympathetic and in harmony
with the wider area.
11. It is concluded on the main issue that the proposed hip to gable conversion and
rear dormer would have no materially detrimental effect on the character or
appearance of the host dwelling, the street scene of The Glen or the surrounding
area. In consequence, the development would comply with Policies EN1, EN2 and
H15 of The Local Plan for Slough, 2004, and Policy 8 of the Core Strategy 2006-
2026 Development Plan Document, 2008. Taken together and amongst other
things these expect extensions to be of a high quality design that respects and is
compatible in terms of scale and design with the host building and surrounding
area. In particular, extensions should be designed such that they are in keeping
with the host building and have no adverse effect on the existing street scene.
12. Turning to conditions, in addition to the statutory commencement condition,
conditions are necessary to ensure the development is carried out in accordance
with the approved plans and in materials that match the host dwelling. This is for
the avoidance of doubt and to protect the character and appearance of the area.
13. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I
conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
K E Down
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.