- Decision
- allowed, 4 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: S Ramsden
- Authority
- Slough (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6008903
- Application reference
- P/20265/004
- Procedure
- householder
- Development
- Appeal against conditions 6 (no subdivision/HMO) and 9 (removal of Class B and E PD rights) on householder extensions permission
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- DM6(2)(c), DM6(1)
- Development plan policies
- Slough Local Plan 2004 H14, Residential Extensions Guidelines SPD 2010
- Main issues
- necessity of PD/HMO restriction conditions
Summary
Conditions barring subdivision or HMO use and removing Class B and E PD rights on a householder permission were deleted. The Council offered no "clear justification" under DM6(2)(c) beyond a generic amenity reason, and the large corner-plot garden could take outbuildings without breaching H14 (DL ¶¶9–23).
What made the difference
No site-specific evidence of harm from HMO use or future PD works. The comparators relied on had concrete evidence, such as parking stress or a prior unauthorised HMO, that was absent here (DL ¶¶24–29).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| DM6(2)(c) | pass | no clear justification to restrict C3→C4 PD or Class B/E rights; generic amenity reason insufficient (DL 9-16, 23) | |
| Slough LP H14 | accord | 14 m garden below 15 m SPD guideline but 350 sq m+ usable amenity on corner plot (DL 17-22) |
Key facts
- Detached 4-bed on wide corner plot; >350 sq m rear/side amenity
- Council comparators (193 Vicarage Way, 100B Waterbeach Rd, 140 Langley Rd, 88/90 Quinbrookes) distinguished on evidence
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.