Slough Borough Council has lost an appeal over planning conditions that restricted future HMO use and removed permitted development rights for roof enlargements and outbuildings at a house in Blandford Road South.
The decision does not say councils can never remove permitted development rights by condition. They can. The important point is that the restriction still needs a clear, site-specific justification and must satisfy the normal tests for planning conditions.
Which permitted development rights had Slough removed?
The appeal concerned 5 Blandford Road South, Slough. Planning permission P/20265/004 was granted on 14th April 2026 for a front porch, a single-storey side extension and a part single, part two-storey rear extension.
The appellant, Mr Vikas Arora, challenged Conditions 6 and 9. Inspector S Ramsden allowed appeal 6008903 on 4th September 2026 and deleted both conditions.
Condition 6 required the permitted extension to be used only in conjunction with the existing house and said it must not be subdivided or used in multiple occupation.
Condition 9 removed rights under Part 1 Class B, which deals with additions or alterations to a roof that enlarge a house, and Class E, which covers buildings and other development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse.
Planning Geek’s main guide to planning conditions explains the tests that apply when a permission is made subject to restrictions.
National policy requires clear justification
The current National Planning Policy Framework says planning conditions should not restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification. The wider tests also require conditions to be necessary, relevant, precise, enforceable and reasonable.
The Government’s Planning Practice Guidance on conditions makes the same practical point. Blanket removal of small-scale permitted development rights is unlikely to satisfy the tests unless the circumstances of the development actually justify it.
This is not a rule against restrictive conditions. It is a rule against using them as an automatic precaution without explaining the planning harm that they are needed to prevent.
The HMO and subdivision restriction lacked site-specific evidence
Slough’s reason for Condition 6 said subdivision or use in multiple occupation might prejudice the amenity of the area. The Inspector found that the officer’s delegated report did not provide convincing or substantiated evidence of the specific harm that would arise at this property.
There had been references to possible over-development, but these largely related to an earlier version of the extension proposals rather than the scheme that was eventually permitted.
The Inspector also considered other Slough appeals where similar conditions had been retained. Those cases involved evidence of parking pressure, previous unauthorised HMO use or specific concerns about noise, disturbance and intensified occupation. No equivalent evidence had been presented for 5 Blandford Road South.
The general wording of the reason therefore did not amount to the clear justification required for this particular condition.
Slough gave no clear reason for removing Class B
The Class B part of Condition 9 had an even more direct problem. The stated reason for the condition focused on rear garden amenity space and future development in the garden. It did not explain why roof enlargement rights also needed to be removed.
The delegated report again referred to possible over-development but did not identify specific harm that would arise from a future Class B roof addition to the scheme as approved.
The Inspector therefore found no clear justification for withdrawing Class B rights.
The Class E issue was closer, but the site was unusually spacious
Slough had more substance behind its Class E restriction. The council’s Residential Extensions Guidelines SPD recommends a rear garden depth of about 15 metres for a property of this size. After the permitted extension, the rear garden would be around 14 metres deep.
The SPD also says that where retained garden space is at or only marginally above the guideline, a condition may be used to remove permitted development rights so that the council retains control over further structures.
However, the Inspector looked at the whole site rather than the depth figure in isolation. This is a detached house on a wide corner plot, with more than 350 square metres of amenity space to the rear and side, plus a smaller area at the front.
The rear space was flat, reasonably proportioned and not significantly overshadowed or overlooked. In those circumstances, the Inspector was not persuaded that the garden was so constrained that future Class E development would be likely to breach the council’s amenity-space policy.
Restricting Class E was therefore found unnecessary and unreasonable on the actual site, despite the 14-metre garden depth.
The costs award exposes an important distinction
The appellant applied for a full award of costs against Slough. The application was allowed in part.
The Inspector found unreasonable behaviour in relation to Condition 6 and the Class B part of Condition 9. In each case the council had imposed a significant restriction without the clear justification required by national policy. Slough was ordered to pay the appeal costs attributable to those two issues.
But the appellant did not receive costs for the Class E part of Condition 9. Although the Inspector ultimately deleted that restriction, the council had provided a recognisable planning justification based on garden size and its SPD. Losing the planning judgement did not, by itself, make the council’s behaviour unreasonable for costs purposes.
That is a useful reminder that an appeal can succeed on the merits without automatically producing a costs award.
Slough’s own costs application was refused
Slough also applied for a full award of costs against the appellant. That application was refused.
The council argued that the appeal had little prospect of success and criticised parts of the appellant’s case. The Inspector found that Mr Arora had reasonably exercised his right to challenge the conditions and had focused on whether the restrictions were necessary and reasonable.
Responding to relevant arguments is part of the ordinary appeal process. It did not amount to unnecessary or wasted expense simply because the council disagreed with those arguments.
Planning Geek’s guide to planning appeal costs explains how the unreasonable-behaviour test works.
A planning condition is not the same as an Article 4 Direction
Both mechanisms can remove or restrict development that would otherwise benefit from permitted development rights, but they operate differently.
A planning condition is attached to a particular planning permission and must satisfy the normal legal and policy tests for conditions. Its necessity has to be justified in the context of the development being permitted.
An Article 4 Direction, by contrast, withdraws specified permitted development rights across a defined area or site through the GPDO’s separate Article 4 procedure. Article 4 has its own evidential, procedural and compensation considerations.
The existence of Article 4 powers does not prevent an authority from using a planning condition where a site-specific restriction is genuinely needed. Equally, a standard condition should not become a shortcut for imposing a wider policy objective without the evidence required for that particular permission.
The practical lesson for restrictive planning conditions
For councils, this appeal is a good prompt to avoid treating removal of permitted development as boilerplate wording.
- Identify the specific future development or use that creates the planning concern
- Explain the harm that could arise on this site rather than relying on a generic possibility
- Match the restriction to the actual risk instead of removing unrelated classes
- Check whether the permitted scheme has changed since an earlier concern was identified
- Give a reason that makes the connection between the condition and the evidence clear
For applicants, a restrictive condition can be challenged under section 78. The key question is not simply whether the owner would prefer to retain permitted development rights, but whether the condition can be shown to fail one or more of the established tests.
Planning Geek also has detailed guidance on Class E outbuildings, Class C4 HMOs and the HMO Article 4 map.
Read the appeal and costs decisions
The appeal is 6008903. Planning Geek hosts the main appeal decision and the combined costs decisions in our own library. The costs PDF contains both the appellant’s partially allowed application and Slough’s refused application. The Planning Inspectorate case page remains the official case record.
Created: 5th September 2026
0 Comments