Understanding planning · 13 min read
Planning application documents: what to read first
Understand planning application documents, officer reports and decision notices. Use a reading checklist, document table and worked example to inspect a case.
Application overview
Construction of a part single, part double storey side and rear extension
Proposal details
- Reference
- P/01364/001
- Alternative references
- PP-14404222
- Ward
- Baylis & Salt Hill
- Agent
- UL-HAQ
- UPRN
- APP8FV845MX472W0YD
Sign in to view all collected council fields and recorded changes.
Sign in to view collected detailsDocuments 2 of 2
| Document | Published | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Signed Decision NoticeDecisions | 14 Jan 2026 | View |
| Signed Officers ReportDecisions | 14 Jan 2026 | View |
Documents open on the council website. Browse council documents if a link has changed.
Application timeline
Council milestones and published deadlines. A deadline passing does not confirm a decision.
Decision due date
Past published deadlineA published target or deadline. It does not confirm an outcome.
Council sourceConsultation expiry date
Past published deadlineA published target or deadline. It does not confirm an outcome.
Council sourceStatutory expiry date
Past published deadlineA published target or deadline. It does not confirm an outcome.
Council source
Decision & conditions
Signed Decision Notice Signed Officers ReportPlanning conditions
- The proposed extensions, together with those already built on site, would overwhelm the original dwelling and fail to appear visually subordinate. The proposed width, depth, height, massing and bulk would fail to respect the character of the existing dwelling and the wider streetscene and the proposed two storey side extension would result in a significant breach of the established building line along Oatlands Drive. Furthermore, the proposals would result in a significant loss of rear amenity space with the proposals failing to provide adequate outdoor amenity space for a dwelling of the size proposed. The proposals are contrary to DP1, DP3, EX12, EX26 and EX48 of the Residential Extensions Guidelines SPD (2010), EN1, H14 and H15 of the Slough Local Plan (2004), Core Policy 8 of the Slough Core Strategy (2008) and contrary to Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
- The site is located within Flood Zone 3 and insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate how the proposals will manage flood waters and help address climate change. In the absence of a sufficiently detailed Flood Risk Assessment, the application fails to demonstrate that it will not increase flood risk on adjoining land, nor has it been demonstrated that the future occupiers of the development would be safe in the event of an evacuation by way of an evacuation plan. In the absence of sufficient information, the LPA cannot be satisfied that the proposals would be acceptable with regard to flood risk and are therefore contrary to Core Policy 8 of the Core Strategy (2008) and contrary to Paragraphs 170, 176 and Footnote 63 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
- It is the view of the Local Planning Authority that the proposed development does not improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area for the reasons given in this notice and it is not in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.
- Drawings considered: - PL-01 Rev P1, dated 18/08/2025, received on 13/10/2025 - PL-02 Rev P1, dated 10/11/2025, received on 13/10/2025
