Proposed development is relocation of front entrance door, single storey rear extension, single storey side extension, front gable feature, replacement roof, raising of eaves and ridge, 1 no front dormer, 1 no. side dormer, 1 no. side/rear dormer, new chimneys and carport and alt erations to external finishes following demolition of existing elements

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 April 2026 by P B Jarvis DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:29 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6006278 3 Elm Croft, Datchet SL3 9DS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Woodley against the decision of Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Council. • The application Ref. is 25/02827FULL. • The proposed development is relocation of front entrance door, single storey rear extension, single storey side extension, front gable feature, replacement roof, raising of eaves and ridge, 1 no front dormer, 1 no. side dormer, 1 no. side/rear dormer, new chimneys and carport and alt erations to external finishes following demolition of existing elements. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for relocation of front entrance door, single storey rear extension, single storey side extension, front gable feature, replacement roof, raising of eaves and ridge, 1 no front dormer, 1 no. side dormer, 1 no. side/rear dormer, new chimneys and carport and alterations to external finishes following demolition of existing elements at 3 Elm Croft, Datchet SL3 9DS in accordance with the terms of application ref: 25/02827/FULL and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years of the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: P.M.000 (location plan), P.M.100 (existing site plan), P.M.200 (existing ground floor plans), P.M.201 (existing floor plans – attic storage), P.M.202 (existing roof plan), P.M.300 (existing front and rear elevations), P.M.301 (existing side elevations), P.M.400 Rev H (proposed site plan). P.M.401 (proposed 3D views), P.M.500 Rev. G (proposed ground floor plans), P.M.501 Rev. G (proposed first floor plans), P.M.502 Rev. F (proposed roof plan), P.M.600 Rev. F (proposed front and rear elevations), P.M.601 Rev. G (proposed side elevations). 3) The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be as indicated on the approved plans, samples of which shall have been previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 4) The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with a scheme of flood mitigation and resilience measures as outlined in the Flood Risk Assessment (prepared by Innervision Design dated September 2025), the Appeal Decision 6006278 2 full details of which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development. 5) Prior to the commencement of any works above slab level, a scheme of biodiversity enhancements, to include but not limited to 1no. woodcrete bat box, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the council. The scheme shall include: • A site plan showing the location of all enhancements • Where relevant, elevation plans showing the locations of integrated enhancements to ensure correct placement in relation to windows, doors, balconies, light sources etc. • Specifications for the type of boxes to be used. The approved biodiversity enhancements shall thereafter be installed as part of the implementation of the development. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the street scene and wider area. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises a single-storey bungalow located in a small close of five properties within a residential area of Datchet. Four of the five properties, including the appeal site, are of similar single-storey design with pitched roofs and brick elevations. No. 4, adjoining to the north-west of the appeal site has been altered and now appears as a one and a half storey dwelling with roof dormers within a hipped roof and rendered elevations. 4. The proposed extensions and alterations to the existing bungalow would result in significant changes to its design and appearance as not only would it involve additions to the side and rear with the extended dwelling given a render finish, it would also involve a new higher standing seam roof to provide first floor accommodation. This would result in a dwelling that would have a very different, contemporary appearance contrasting to a degree with the adjoining extended property at No. 3. However, the extended dwelling would have an interesting, modern design that would take some cues from the wider area including the gable front feature and larger window sizes. Also, given Its location towards the rear corner of the small close, whilst it would be seen within the street scene it would not appear unduly prominent or intrusive within it. 5. Whilst the character of the close is predominantly influenced by the existing single storey brick bungalows, the presence of the extended and higher dwelling at no. 4 has introduced some variety and has had the effect of diluting this character somewhat. Despite its more modern style and varied us of materials, the proposal would introduce an interesting and well-proportioned dwelling that would sit comfortably on its plot. It would not result in any harm to the character of the street scene nor would it look incongruous. 6. The Council’s Borough Wide Design Guide (June 2020) (BWDG) through principle 10.1 generally seeks extensions that respect the main building they relate to in terms of style, form and detailing and that they should usually be subordinate. However, in this case, as the proposal results in a complete change to the Appeal Decision 6006278 3 appearance of the existing dwelling, the general aims of the BWDG which are to achieve development that functions well and looks good are more relevant. In this case, for the reasons given above, the proposal would satisfy these aims. 7. Overall, I find that the proposal would not have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and wider area. The development therefore accords with Policy QP3 of the Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Local Plan 2013-2033 (2022) (LP) which, amongst other things, expects new development to contribute towards achieving sustainable, high quality design which respects and enhances local character and helps create attractive new townscapes. It would also comply with policy DAT2 of the Datchet Neighbourhood Plan 2022-2033 (2023) (DNP) which has similar aims. Furthermore, the development satisfies the Framework which seeks to achieve good design which is sympathetic to local character. Other Matters 8. The appellant has drawn attention to the Datchet Conservation Area the extent of which is shown in the DNP. However, the Council has not referred to it and the appeal site is some distance away. I find that it would not have any impact on its character or appearance. Conditions 9. In addition to the standard time condition, a condition to refer to the approved plans is necessary in the interests of clarity and to also indicate the external materials to be used. The delegated officer report confirms that the site is located in Flood Zone 3, at high risk of flooding, therefore the application was accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment. This confirms that the proposal would not result in increased flood risk subject to the provision of various flood mitigation measures as set out in the FRA. A condition to secure these measures as part of the development is therefore necessary in the interests of minimising flood risk and to accord with LP Policy NR1, DNP Policy DAT10 and the Framework. The submitted preliminary ecology appraisal confirmed that the existing property is of negligible value for roosting bats. However, a condition to secure appropriate biodiversity enhancements as suggested by the Council’s Ecologist is necessary in the interests of protecting and enhancing biodiversity to accord with LP Policy NR2, DNP Policy DAT8 and the Framework. Conclusion 10. I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. P B Jarvis INSPECTOR