Furious neighbours have blasted a decision to approve an ‘out of character’ loft conversion that overlooks their homes.
The four-bedroom residential property in Slough, currently used as a care home, had retrospective planning permission for a set of extensions rejected by the council in October last year.
Planning chiefs said the work ‘would be detrimental to the character, appearance and visual amenities of the surrounding area’.
But owners, Macadamia Support, appealed the decision and the Planning Inspectorate has given it the green light.
Locals are up in arms and claim they will lose privacy and will have put up with noise from more patients disturbing their peace and quiet.
They also believe the decision will spark a free-for-all with residents now available to build whatever they like.
One furious neighbour told MailOnline: ‘This decision just gives everyone permission to ignore what the council says.
‘It’s just not on.’
Neighbours have blasted a decision by the Planning Inspectorate to approve retrospective planning permission for an ‘overdominant’ loft conversion which was rejected by the council
The side dormer windows on either side look to be overlooking the adjacent properties
A neighbour had complained in the planning consultation that the ‘frequent switching of lights’ was disrupting their sleep
Building work for the single storey side and part single part double rear extension, and hip to gable loft conversion began in 2021 and was completed in November 2023.
However, there were no necessary planning permissions in place, with a retrospective application only submitted in September last year – nearly a year after the works were done.
Images of the extension show the hip to gable conversion with windows looking down the sides of neighbouring properties on both sides.
One local said: ‘The initial architectural plans did not include any windows on the first floor adjacent to my hallway landing.
‘I am formally objecting to all side windows that overlook my property, as they directly face my hallway. The frequent switching of lights during the evening hours disrupts my sleep when my bedroom doors are open on the first and second (loft) floor.
‘The newly installed windows provide a view into my hallway, resulting in disturbances from both noise and light.
‘I am also objecting to all loft windows facing the side of my property. Before this construction commenced, there were no windows facing the side of my property.
‘Furthermore, this property is currently being utilised as a care home, for which it lacks the necessary licensing.
‘The ongoing noise and disturbances associated with this operation prevent me from opening my windows or enjoying my garden at certain times of the day.
‘Additionally, the presence of a large industrial bin is visually unappealing, and the parking situation created by staff and visitors poses safety hazards.’
Another neighbour said he worried the move would ‘set a precedent’ for other homes in the area to go ahead with major building works without planning permission.
He told MailOnline: ‘It’s the precedent that it sets.
A view of the back of the extension shows the dormer sticking out
A view of the loft conversion from the road directly behind the property
‘It will make everyone else on the road think they can build what they want without the correct permissions and ignore what the council says.
‘The dormer that they built deviates a lot from the initial plans.
‘It is not in character with the area. It’s a nice, quiet residential area.
‘There is a house of a few doors down from there that did a similar extension but with the correct permissions and it is more in keeping with the area.
‘And it’s the fact that they’ve got people in there with disabilities etc. You can hear a lot of loud screaming in the garden.
‘It can get noisy, but its not the residents’ fault.
‘No one was consulted on its use as a HMO or care home, or over who is going to live in it.
‘It’s not so bad to formally complain, but even if we did I don’t know what would actually happen.’
Questioning the Planning Inspectorate decision to approve the application, he said: ‘It was refused for a reason.
‘I’d like to know why all of a sudden it’s okay now.
‘What’s the point then of having planning enforcement?’
The application was approved on appeal on the basis that it is not ‘visually intrusive nor harmful to the character’ of the property or the wider area
The owners had previously obtained planning approval in November 2020 for the erection of a ‘6m deep single-storey rear extension’, and in April 2021 was issued a certificate of lawful development for a ‘hip to gable loft conversion’ with two side windows and a front velux window.
In June 2021 they then obtained permission on appeal for the ‘construction of single storey side extension and part single/part double storey rear extension’ as well as the demolition of the garage.
However, the building work was said to have ‘deviated considerably’ from the plans presented in the initial approved planning applications.
The council’s refusal notice read: ‘The development by reason of its design with bulky and overdominant roof form is not in keeping with the original property and fails to reflect the character of the host dwelling that results in a poorly designed enlargement.
‘As a result of cumulative additions, the development fails to respect, enhance, be subservient and in character with the host dwelling and would be detrimental to the character, appearance and visual amenities of the surrounding area and the Residential Area of Exceptional Character (RAEC), where side dormers are not common.’
The street is deemed as a RAEC which are identified to ‘protect’ areas with unique design qualities.
According to Slough Council’s website, two storey/first floor side extensions in RAECs ‘will not normally be permitted in order to prevent terracing, maintain important spacing between existing buildings and to retain the character of the original building’.
However, the Planning Inspectorate found that the works carried out on the building were just ‘an alternative amalgam’ of the previous planning permissions the applicants had obtained.
The Planning Inspectorate’s planning decision read: ‘The development has undeniably altered the form and shape of the dwelling’s original roof.
‘Its hipped form has been subsumed by a front facing mono-pitch that masks large, tile clad dormers to each side which sit only marginally up from the eaves and which span the full depth of the original dwelling.
‘These both sit behind a false ridge line, which runs parallel to the road, and merge with each other to form a square flat crown roof that sits marginally taller than the dwelling’s original ridge height.
‘The two-storey extension to the rear projects the original height and form of the dwelling with a conventional hipped roof.’
The property is said to be being used as a care home since last year
However, it ruled that the changes were not ‘visually intrusive nor harmful to the character or appearance of the appeal property or wider area’.
It read: ‘When seen directly face on from London Road, the dwelling has the appearance of a traditional gabled form with a subordinate retained hipped feature over its original two-storey front bay.
‘This merely reflects hip to gable changes that are evident on other properties nearby.
‘Despite the marginal increase to the ridge height, the front roof appears neither disproportionate nor out of keeping within the street scene.’
While it noted concerns that the residential property was being used as a care home, it noted that at the time the works were carried out it was being used as a detached family house.
A Slough Borough Council spokesperson said: ‘The council is always disappointed when a Planning Inspector finds differently to the council’s Planning decisions.
‘However, the homeowner exercised their right to appeal the council’s decision to refuse the application and in this case the Planning Inspector came to a different conclusion.
‘Officers clearly felt that the harm associated with the development warranted refusal however the Planning Inspector did not agree with us on this occasion.’
MailOnline has approached the applicant for comment.
