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 proposed first floor rear extension over existing single storey rear extension.
Proposal details
- Reference
- P/12455/009
- Alternative references
- PP-14959935
- Ward
- Manor Park & Stoke
- Agent
- Mr Bhubhinder Seera
- UPRN
- 100080318308
Sign in to view all collected council fields and recorded changes.
Sign in to view collected detailsDocuments 9 of 9
| Document | Published | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Proposed Ground Floor PlanSubmitted Plans/Documents | 25 May 2026 | View |
| Proposed First Floor PlanSubmitted Plans/Documents | 25 May 2026 | View |
| Application Form - Without Personal DataApplication Form | 25 May 2026 | View |
| Design and Access StatementSubmitted Plans/Documents | 25 May 2026 | View |
| Existing EleavtionsSubmitted Plans/Documents | 11 Jun 2026 | View |
| Location Plan, Block Plan and Existing Floor PlansSubmitted Plans/Documents | 11 Jun 2026 | View |
| Proposed ElevationsSubmitted Plans/Documents | 11 Jun 2026 | View |
| Signed Decision NoticeDecisions | 6 Aug 2026 | View |
| Signed Officer ReportDecisions | 6 Aug 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 Officer ReportPlanning conditions
- The proposed first-floor rear extension, by virtue of its depth, width, height, positioning and design, would fail to respect the character and scale of the original dwellinghouse and would fail to appear visually subordinate to the host dwelling. Furthermore, the cumulative impact of the proposals when taken together with previous extensions would overwhelm the original dwelling. The proposals would be seen in glimpsed views from the highway and would therefore be harmful to the character of the streetscene, and the proximity of the proposals to No.27 and No.29 Granville Avenue would breach a 45-degree line thus adversely affecting the outlook from those neighbours’ nearest first-floor windows and the first-floor window located in the flank would result in the perception of overlooking to No.27. The proposals are therefore contrary to DP1-DP3, DP6, EX26, EX27 and EX30 of the Residential Extensions Guidelines SPD (2010), Saved Policies EN1, EN2 and H15 of the Slough Local Plan (2004), Core Policy 8 of the Core Strategy (2008) and contrary to Paragraphs 131 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
- The application site comprises unlawful development in the form of a first-floor side extension and the ridge of the main dwelling has been increased in height. This operational development does not benefit from formal planning permission, nor would the works amount to ‘permitted development’ as set out in the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended). Officers sought to work with the applicant and their agent and requested that this unlawful development be regularised in the first instance, however the applicant has refused to do so. As such, the drawings do not accurately reflect the site's lawful status in respect of its built form or layout and the LPA cannot therefore be satisfied that the proposals would comply with the Development Plan including Saved Policies EN1, EN2 and H15 of the Slough Local Plan (2004) and Core Policy 8 of the Core Strategy (2008).
- 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: - BSS/299/26-01 Rev A, dated June 2026, received on 11/06/2026 - BSS/299/26-02 Rev A, dated June 2026, received on 11/06/2026 - BSS/299/26-03, dated May 2026, received on 25/05/2026 - BSS/299/26-04, dated May 2026, received on 25/05/2026 - BSS/299/26-05 Rev A, dated June 2026, received on 11/06/2026
