A Slough owner has lost an appeal against an enforcement notice targeting six self-contained flats, after an Inspector rejected her argument that the property operated as a shared house supported by an HMO licence.
The decision requires the flats’ use to stop and unauthorised building work to be removed at the Hillside property. The Inspector found the nine-month compliance period too short and said 12 calendar months should be allowed.
Ms Isabelle Sanoglu relied on shared access, utilities, management and laundry arrangements. The decisive question was whether each unit could function independently, not what the property had been called for licensing or Council Tax purposes.
Six units with the essentials of independent living
Inspector V Goldberg found that every flat had a bathroom and kitchen facilities, including a hob, extractor, sink, fridge and storage, alongside space for sleeping and living.
The decision, issued on 25th September 2026, states:
“each flat contains the essential facilities required for day to day independent living.”
Residents’ use of a communal garden and washing facilities did not change that conclusion. Nor did entry through a shared front door prevent the accommodation functioning as separate homes.
The Inspector also saw separate meters and apparent electrical consumer units outside each flat. These were considered likely to indicate separately metered electricity supplies.
Why the HMO licence was not the answer
The owner referred to an HMO licence issued on 2nd December 2024 and a single Council Tax account. The HMO licence was part of her case that the building operated as shared accommodation rather than six independent homes.
Slough Borough Council told the appeal that the licence had been revoked in August 2025. It also said the Council Tax position was being addressed.
Neither matter determined the planning use. The Inspector assessed the actual facilities and occupation, finding six self-contained flats rather than the HMO claimed by the owner.
The decision does not establish that issuing the earlier licence was improper. Housing licensing and planning control answer different questions. Planning Geek’s Class C4 HMO guide explains the separate planning use-class position.
The conversion and extension also failed on their merits
The enforcement notice, issued on 11th June 2025, covered both the conversion and a part first-floor and part two-storey rear extension.
The Inspector found the broad, flat-roofed addition dominated the traditional detached house. The loss of family accommodation, inadequate internal space in some flats and additional parking pressure also counted against retaining the development.
Not every council objection succeeded. The Inspector did not find unacceptable harm to neighbouring outlook or privacy, but that did not overcome the other problems.
What must now change
As varied, the notice requires the self-contained flats’ use to cease and all but one kitchen to be removed. It also requires demolition of the unauthorised rear extension and the timber-framed garden structure, removal of the specified laundry and hot-water equipment, and clearance of resulting debris.
A separate, broadly worded requirement to remove internal obstructions to free passage was deleted. The Inspector retained the more specific steps needed to remedy the breaches.
The Inspector accepted that six households would need to leave before the works could begin, and said 12 months rather than nine would be reasonable.
However, the formal variation appears to reverse the replacement wording, despite the clear 12-month finding in the reasons. That apparent drafting error needs clarification before a compliance deadline is calculated.
The flats also failed the wider planning test
The HMO licence argument was only the first part of the appeal. Once the Inspector found that six self-contained flats had actually been created, she also considered whether retrospective planning permission should be granted for the conversion and the rear extension.
Slough’s Core Strategy seeks to prevent the net loss of family accommodation. Its definition requires a self-contained dwelling of at least 76 square metres with direct access to a private garden and at least two bedrooms, and specifically excludes flats and maisonettes. The appellant argued that one of the new two-bedroom flats could serve a family, but the Inspector found that did not meet the policy definition.
Internal space was another problem. The appellant accepted that some of the flats fell below the nationally described minimum gross internal area standards. The Inspector acknowledged that the units had windows, basic facilities and access to a shared garden, but said those were ordinary features expected of residential accommodation rather than benefits capable of outweighing the floorspace shortfall.
Parking pressure added to the case against retention
Hillside was also found to be under parking pressure. The Inspector described it as a relatively narrow residential road and recorded heavy daytime parking during the site visit. The council had supplied photographs showing vehicles parked partly on the footway and on yellow lines.
The appellant pointed to nearby development with its own off-street spaces and to alternatives to car use, but the Inspector found that this did not answer the parking demand generated by the six flats themselves. Parking therefore joined design, loss of family accommodation and poor internal space in the case against retrospective permission.
That makes the decision broader than the headline licensing point. The HMO licence did not decide the planning use, but even after the six flats were identified for what they were, the scheme still had to survive the normal planning merits assessment. It did not. Planning Geek’s guide to enforcement appeal grounds explains how grounds (a), (b), (f) and (g) operate.
A formal wording problem remains
The Inspector’s reasoning is clear that nine months was too short and that 12 months would be reasonable, particularly because six households must find alternative accommodation before substantial works can begin. The formal decision, however, appears to state the substitution the wrong way round.
Planning Geek has therefore not presented either period as the definitive operative deadline. The discrepancy is visible in the decision itself and should be clarified before anyone calculates the final compliance date from the appeal decision alone.
Primary source: appeal APP/J0350/C/25/3369048, dated 25th September 2026. The Planning Inspectorate case page is also available.
0 Comments