The Slough two-home appeal at the rear of Elliman Avenue has been dismissed after a Planning Inspector found that the applicant had not demonstrated acceptable daylight for neighbours or adequately assessed potential bat habitat. The ruling illustrates why late appeal-stage evidence cannot always repair omissions in an original application.
Inspector S McIntyre issued the decision on 8th October 2026. The proposal was to demolish an unfinished building and erect two three-bedroom dwellings, one of three storeys and the other two storeys, with associated parking, bin and cycle storage.
I would keep the different findings separate here: some of the council’s objections failed, but that did not make the scheme acceptable. The Inspector found the architectural appearance acceptable and rejected the council’s biodiversity net gain objection, but concluded that harm to neighbouring living conditions and inadequate protected-species evidence prevented permission.
Slough two-home appeal: new evidence came too late
The case concerned application P/8338/005 for land behind 5 to 9 Elliman Avenue, adjoining Myrtle Crescent and Allington Court. The application behind the Slough two-home appeal described an uncompleted existing building being removed and replaced by a pair of houses.
The appellant submitted revised drawings and a daylight and sunlight report during the appeal. Those documents had not been before Slough Borough Council when it considered the application behind the Slough two-home appeal, and interested parties had not been consulted on them.
In the Slough two-home appeal, the Inspector applied the Planning Inspectorate’s procedural guide for applications dated on or before 31st March 2026. In the circumstances, accepting new drawings and analysis without appropriate consultation would have prejudiced the council and other interested parties.
The appeal was therefore determined on the material submitted with the application behind the Slough two-home appeal. This is not a universal prohibition on all later evidence, but a reminder that fairness, consultation and the scale of any changes determine whether appeal-stage material can properly be considered.
The Planning Inspectorate procedural guide explains these responsibilities. Applicants should plan for the possibility that an important technical report produced only after refusal may not be admitted in the way they hope.
Neighbour daylight and outlook were not demonstrated
The proposed development would have presented a gable wall near windows at Allington Court, together with a rear roof dormer. The existing unfinished structure had a different hipped roof profile. The inspector considered the changed scale and proximity likely to cause significant daylight and sunlight loss to neighbouring windows, some apparently serving habitable rooms.
Without the daylight report as part of the original application, the Inspector in the Slough two-home appeal was unable to conclude that the effects were acceptable. That evidential gap counted against permission rather than being left for a later planning condition.
There was also an outlook problem for numbers 7 and 9 Elliman Avenue. The proposed houses would appear overbearing when seen from rear windows, increasing the sense of enclosure. For number 7, the effect would also be pronounced in its rear garden.
The decision referred to Slough’s Residential Extensions Guidelines, a supplementary planning document which advises a minimum separation of 15 metres between a primary elevation and the flank wall of a two-storey house. The appeal scheme achieved approximately 14 metres.
A one-metre difference from guidance did not operate as an automatic national rule or statutory prohibition. It formed part of the Inspector’s overall judgment, alongside the three-dimensional scale of the buildings and the character of the adjoining outdoor spaces.
Together, the expected loss of light and unacceptable outlook led to conflict with local policies seeking compatible development and protection of neighbouring living conditions.
Bat assessment was a separate unresolved risk
The existing building was unfinished, with evidence that it was not fully airtight or watertight. Mature trees and a hedge were nearby. The council’s officer report had identified these circumstances, yet the application lacked a preliminary ecological appraisal or preliminary bat roost assessment.
All British bats are legally protected European protected species. The Inspector could not be satisfied that the demolition and redevelopment would avoid harm because the necessary ecological assessment had not established whether bats were present and how the work might affect them.
National guidance generally requires the presence or absence of protected species to be established before permission where they could be affected. The Inspector found no exceptional circumstances that would justify postponing the necessary survey work to a condition.
The practical distinction is critical. A planning condition may deal with suitable mitigation details after an impact has been properly assessed, but it should not ordinarily be used as a substitute for discovering whether a legally protected species may be affected at all.
The appeal therefore failed on a second, independent ground, despite the small number of homes proposed.
Biodiversity net gain was not a reason to refuse
On biodiversity net gain, the inspector took a different view. The appellant had supplied a statutory metric and a report prepared by an ecological practice. Slough questioned whether an existing hedgerow had been omitted and whether the gain hierarchy was properly followed.
The report and site photographs described bramble vegetation, rather than an identifiable hedgerow. The Inspector observed the same broad condition on the site visit. Without evidence of a hedge that had been incorrectly excluded, the council’s allegation did not invalidate the metric.
The Inspector also drew a line between the statutory biodiversity gain condition and deciding planning permission. Under the English system, most relevant permissions are subject to a pre-commencement condition requiring an approved Biodiversity Gain Plan.
As official biodiversity net gain guidance explains, the plan demonstrates how at least a ten per cent biodiversity gain will be delivered. It must be approved before the development begins, subject to the applicable exemptions and rules.
The submitted information was considered adequate for the planning stage, and the Inspector was satisfied that the gain objective and hierarchy could be addressed through the statutory condition and subsequent plan. That finding did not remove the separate need to assess bats.
This is a useful warning against bundling every ecological criticism together. Protected-species surveys and the biodiversity gain condition answer different statutory questions and may properly produce different outcomes on the same site.
Acceptable design did not overcome the defects
The scheme was considered in its mixed streetscape context, with semi-detached and terraced houses, flats, hipped and gabled roofs, varied materials and small front gardens used for parking. The Inspector concluded that the proposed appearance would not be harmful to local character.
Although the proposed buildings were not architecturally identical to nearby homes, the visual variety, setbacks and detailing meant that the development could sit acceptably within Myrtle Crescent. The council’s character objection did not prevail. The distinction between design quality and other planning harms is explored in Planning Geek’s outstanding design and planning policy guide.
Slough could demonstrate only about 2.5 years of deliverable housing land supply, so additional homes merited positive weight. The proposal would also offer construction activity and future occupation benefits, albeit of limited scale because only two dwellings were involved.
Those benefits did not outweigh the identified harm to neighbours and unresolved bat evidence. The Inspector applied the sustainable development policies of the August 2026 Framework and dismissed the appeal.
Five practical lessons for small housing schemes
First, secure competent daylight and sunlight analysis while the application can still be consulted upon if close separation and changed roof massing make it necessary. Secondly, explain outlook as well as numerical separation. A scheme may harm amenity despite being close to an advisory distance.
Thirdly, commission proportionate ecological surveys before seeking to determine a scheme involving potentially suitable bat habitat. Fourthly, keep the statutory biodiversity gain metric and the protected-species exercise distinct. Finally, do not assume that an appeal will provide a second opportunity to rewrite a project with evidence the public has never seen.
The primary source is appeal decision 6011425, issued on 8th October 2026. The Planning Inspectorate appeal record and National Planning Policy Framework provide the underlying policy context.
0 Comments