Construction of a single storey front extension to form porch, two storey side and rear extension to existing dwelling. New roof with increase of ridge height and eaves

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 July 2026 by K Hole BA (Hons) Decision by L C Hughes BA (Hons) MTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 05 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009029 14A Raymond Lodge, Raymond Road, Slough SL3 8LW  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 Kirti Shenoy against the decision of Slough Borough Council.  The application Ref is P/20982/000.  The development proposed is “Construction of a single storey front extension to form porch, two storey side and rear extension to existing dwelling. New roof with increase of ridge height and eaves”. 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 3. The Council, with the agreement of the appellant, has changed the description of development to incorporate the “new roof with increase of ridge height and eaves”. I have used this description in the banner heading as it more accurately reflects the proposed development. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effects of the proposed development on;  the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area; and  the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to outlook and light. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and appearance 5. The appeal site is located within a residential area that is predominantly characterised by two-storey semi-detached dwellings of similar scale and design. While the appeal dwelling is two-storey, given that it is detached, of a slightly larger scale with a unique design and complex roof form, it does not entirely reflect the prevailing character of other dwellings in the area. Appeal Decision 6009029 2 6. The Slough Local Development Framework Residential Extensions Guidelines, Supplementary Planning Document (2010) (SPD) indicates that extensions should be designed to be subordinate and in proportion to the original dwelling. Moreover, it advises that first floor side extensions should be set back from the front wall with roofs that are set down from the ridge of the main house. 7. The side extension would sit flush with the front wall. Therefore, in that regard it would not comply with the SPD. Furthermore, given that it would extend back to the rear wall of the dwelling and infill the stepped in back portion of the side elevation, it would add substantial bulk to the side of the dwelling. 8. While the main roof ridge would be increased by less than 1 metre, the raised eaves would result in a roof pitch that is considerably shallower than at present. The new built form underneath would significantly increase the scale and mass of the host dwelling resulting in a disproportionate addition. 9. The existing dwelling is within a spacious plot that would allow for the property to be extended without the plot appearing cramped or overdeveloped. Moreover, the individual design of the house would not lead to an extension disrupting a distinct pattern of development. Notwithstanding this, the proposed development would substantially increase the size of the dwelling and change its appearance to an extent that would result in it appearing as incongruous and over dominant in the context of nearby dwellings. 10. The front extension that would form a porch is modest in size and would only contribute to a marginal increase to the footprint of the appeal dwelling. As such, it would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. 11. However, when considering the different elements of the proposed development cumulatively, the increase in the bulk, height and scale would dominate all elevations, failing to remain subordinate to the original dwelling against the advice within the SPD. 12. I acknowledge that the SPD is intended as guidance. Nevertheless, the effect of the proposed side and rear extensions and the proposed new roof would appear as incongruous and disproportionate, rather than as a subservient addition to the dwelling. Due to its back land location, the appeal property is not particularly visible from the public highway. Even so, it is visible from the rear first floor rooms and gardens of neighbouring properties. A lack of public visibility does not remove the policy requirement for development to be compatible with the original dwelling. 13. The proposed development would therefore have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. 14. In that regard, it conflicts with Core Policy 8 of the Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2008) (CS) and Policies EN1 and EN2 of the Local Plan for Slough (2004) (LP). These policies require development to be of high-quality design and to be compatible with the proportions of the original dwelling and its surroundings. For the same reasons, it would conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which requires development of good design. Living conditions Appeal Decision 6009029 3 15. Whilst in well-established residential areas, views of other properties are not uncommon, the SPD indicates that extensions should not be overbearing on neighbouring properties or result in loss of outlook. 16. Views of the appeal property from neighbouring dwellings are generally dominated by the large sloping roof, which covers much of the first-floor accommodation. This roof form helps to reduce the perceived bulk and massing of the dwelling and softens its appearance in the surrounding context. The proposed increase in ridge and eaves heights, together with the introduction of additional built form beneath the new roof, would significantly increase the perceived scale and visual presence of the dwelling. As a result, the development would appear appreciably bulkier, more dominant and overbearing when viewed from neighbouring properties, resulting in a harmful loss of outlook. 17. Notwithstanding my findings in relation to outlook, given the separation distances between the appeal property and surrounding dwellings, together with the orientation of the buildings, any additional overshadowing or restriction of light would be limited and would not cause any meaningful harm to the occupiers of neighbouring properties. 18. Therefore, while the proposed development would not result in any meaningful loss of light, it would cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to outlook. 19. In that regard, it would conflict with Core Policy 8 of the CS and Policies H15, EN1 and EN2 of the LP which collectively seek to protect the living conditions of adjoining occupiers. Other Matters 20. I note that the proposed development was submitted following pre-application advice issued by the Council, however it is commonly understood that any advice is not binding. A planning application, which may for example include different details or be subject to extensive consultation may ultimately result in a different outcome. 21. The appellant considers the proposal represents sustainable development that would make efficient use of land, and I acknowledge the benefits of the proposal for the appellant’s family in terms of improved and enlarged living accommodation. However, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the development proposed is the only way of achieving those objectives. Moreover, the Framework states, at paragraph 131, that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Given the harmful impact that the proposal would have on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, the development fails to achieve the aims of the Framework, and any private benefits do not outweigh the harm identified. Conclusion and Recommendation 22. The proposal conflicts with the development plan read as a whole. There are no material considerations advanced that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Appeal Decision 6009029 4 K Hole APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 23. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. L C Hughes INSPECTOR