Single storey front extension

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: 6008566 54 Birch Grove, Slough, SL2 1EP • 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 A Zain against the decision of Slough Borough Council. • The application Ref is P/05248/002. • The development proposed is a single storey front extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey front extension at 54 Birch Grove, Slough, SL2 1EP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P/05248/002, 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 unreferenced approved plans: existing elevations, proposed elevations, existing ground floor plan, proposed ground floor plan (all referenced 54/Bir/01). Site plan and block plan. 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 extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the adjoining terrace and the street scene of Birch Grove. Reasons 3. Birch Grove is a quiet residential street on an estate characterised by mostly similar modern, two storey dwellings arranged in short terraces. The houses are modest in size. All have a flat roofed single storey front projection with the front door and high level side windows which occupies approximately half the width of the house. The appeal dwelling is an end-of-terrace house on a noticeably wider plot and lies adjacent to a gated access to garages. The frontage, in common with other properties is paved and used for parking vehicles. 4. The proposed extension would be about 1m deep, lining up with the existing front projection and maintaining the established building line. It would occupy the full Appeal Decision Ref: 6008566 2 width of the dwelling, incorporating the existing front projection. It would have a lean-to pitched roof. None of the other dwellings in the adjoining terrace or immediate proximity have similar extensions. 5. Nevertheless, I saw a number of similar extensions elsewhere in Birch Grove, on both mid and end terraced houses. In some cases, the extensions created a canopy over an open area to the side of the original front projection and in others the front wall of the dwelling had been extended forward to line up with the front projection. All of these extensions, whether end or mid-terrace, appeared modest and whilst different from the original design, well integrated into the street scene. The proposed extension at the appeal dwelling would likewise appear as a modest and sympathetic enlargement, notwithstanding its visually prominent location. 6. The Council’s Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), 2010, normally resists dominant, full width front extensions and canopies unless they respect the character of the street scene and the design and appearance of the original house. However, the extension’s evidently limited depth, no greater than the existing front projection, sympathetic design and single storey height would ensure visible subservience, notwithstanding its width and location. Moreover, notwithstanding that the host dwelling and adjoining terrace are currently uniform in appearance, the proposed extension, owing to its scale and design would respect the character of the street scene, terrace and original house. In consequence, there would be no conflict with the objectives of the SPD. 7. It is concluded on the main issue that the proposed single storey front extension would have no materially detrimental effect on the character or appearance of the host dwelling, the adjoining terrace or the street scene of Birch Grove. In consequence, it 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 respect existing building lines and have no significant adverse effect of the street scene. 8. 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. 9. 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