Flats in the town centre would be too small – while a home extension on the outskirts of Slough would be too big. That’s the summary of this week’s round-up of planning decisions in Slough.

You can view each one by going to Slough Borough Council’s planning website and searching for the application number provided.

Studio flats on High Street (P/00243/022)

Plans to build studio flats on High Street have been refused on the grounds that they would be “poor, sub-standard living accommodation.”

Mr Sanjiv Kaushal submitted plans to build four studio flats, one single-bedroom flat and one two-bedroom flat on the first and second floors and the loft of 122-124 High Street.

But Slough Borough Council planning officers said the plans didn’t provide bathrooms or kitchens for some of the flats, that some of the flats were too small and that the ceiling of another would be too low for a bedroom.

They said: “Flats 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 by reason of their size and some of the studio flats not being provided with bathrooms and kitchens of any type would result in the provision of poor, sub-standard living accommodation.

“Flat 6 would fail to provide adequate floor-to-ceiling height to provide suitable GIA for a bedroom.”

House extension on Wood Lane (P/13613/004)

A family has had their plans for a bigger kitchen quashed after planning officers refused permission to build an extension on the Green Belt.

The owners of the house on Wood Lane wanted permission to build a double-storey side extension and single-storey rear extension to their kitchen – adding a gym and study to their home.

A design statement submitted to the council said this was to give the family more living space, and would match the existing style of the house. It said: “The additional built space will allow for a larger open plan living & kitchen dining area which is more conducive to modern family living habits.

“The ground floor of the side extension will also incorporate a gym area and a separate study area helping to contribute to improved mental & physical well-being of the occupying family.”

But planning officers refused permission on the grounds that it would be unacceptable development on the Green Belt. They also said its size would harm the original design of the house.

They said: “The proposed development is considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt due to its size, bulk, height and depth. No very special circumstances have been provided to justify the proposal.”