For a single storey front porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 July 2026 by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011118 170 Canterbury Avenue, Slough SL2 1BE • 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 Jahanzaib Akhtar against the decision of Slough Borough Council. • The application Ref. is P/20274/001. • The development proposed is for a single storey front porch. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single-storey front porch at 170 Canterbury Avenue, Slough SL2 1BE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P/20274/001, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be maintained in accordance with the following approved plans: 2000/PL/01, 2000/PL/02, 2000/PL/03, 2000/PL/04 and 2000/PL/05. Preliminary Matter 2. The porch, the subject of this appeal, had been completed at the time of my site visit and therefore is retrospective in nature. Nonetheless the very fact that a proposal is retrospective does not in itself constitute development so I have revised the description of development above and determined the appeal on the basis of what has been built which appears in accordance with the submitted plans. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises a mid-terraced bay-fronted house located within a residential area predominantly comprising semi-detached terraced housing much of which has been extended and altered over time, including with a variety of porch features. 5. A porch has been constructed up against the ground floor bay window in conjunction with one of a similar design and form on 168 Canterbury Avenue, adjoining. It is quite substantial in its appearance in terms of its overall scale, however it does not appear unduly incongruous, essentially forming part and parcel with that on no168 and also being in keeping with the replacement fenestration on the neighbouring property. I note that the Council’s Residential Extensions Appeal Decision 6011118 2 Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) highlights that the maximum depth for front extensions/porches as measured externally, should be no greater than 1.5m and in this case at 1.45m the proposed porch would comply in this respect. 6. The appellant provided a list of examples of front extensions that they considered to be relevant to the appeal proposal. The Council’s Officer report states that certain large front extensions in the vicinity either did not benefit from planning permission or otherwise predated the SPD. I have had regard to them and the Council’s response to those examples, although ultimately each case must be assessed on its own merits. 7. I acknowledge that the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) highlights that development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies and government guidance on design. However, bearing in mind that the porch essentially forms part of a pair on 2no handed properties, they do not appear as obtrusive as perhaps one would have done so on its own. I agree that the two storey bay windows provide attractive features to each dwelling within the terrace and whilst the proposed porch has a dual-pitched roof, nonetheless I consider, on balance, that it does not appear unduly prominent; notwithstanding that it projects beyond the principal elevation of the terrace. 8. Consequently I consider that its scale and form do not appear at odds with the prevailing character of the surrounding area, complying with the depth limitation of the SPD and in compliance with the Core Policy 8 of the Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006 – 2026 (2008) and Policies H15, EN1 and EN2 of the Slough Local Plan (2004) which together require development to be of a high quality design that respects its location and surroundings with use of materials which are in keeping, whilst ensuring that extensions to existing buildings are compatible with the original structure in terms of scale, materials, form, design, fenestration, architectural style, layout and proportions. Other Matters 9. I note the third party concerns with regard to impacts resulting upon them including working hours for building work and resultant noise and disruption, however bearing in mind that the development is complete, I consider that these are not determining factors in this appeal. Conclusion and Conditions 10. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. 11. I consider that it is appropriate to require the development to be maintained in accordance with the submitted plans in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area. C Tivey INSPECTOR