First floor side and rear extensions and a loft conversion with rear dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 August 2026 by Rebecca McAndrew BA Hons, MSc, PG Dip Urban Design, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012032 80 Ditton Road, Datchet, Slough, Windsor and Maidenhead SL3 9LT • 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 Shazia Azram against the decision of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. • The application Ref is 26/00748. • The development proposed is described as first floor side and rear extensions and a loft conversion with rear dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for is first floor side and rear extensions and a loft conversion with rear dormer at 80 Ditton Road, Datchet, Slough, Windsor and Maidenhead SL3 9LT, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/00748, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: AZRAM/PLAN/ 001 (existing elevations), 002 (proposed elevations), 003 (existing & proposed ground floor plans), 003 (existing and proposed first floor plans), 004 (existing and proposed upper floor plans), 005 (existing & proposed roof plans), 005 (proposed block plan), 006 (site location plan). Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. Reasons 3. Taken together, Policy QP3 of the Borough Local Plan 2013-2033 (2022) (LP), Policy DAT2 of the Datchet Neighbourhood Plan (2023) (NP), and the objectives of the Datchet Design Guide (2021) (DG) require new development to deliver high-quality, sustainable design. Proposals should respect local character and use appropriate materials, scale and massing. 4. The appeal property is a detached house set within a sizeable plot. The scheme proposes a number of alterations and extensions to the appellant’s home which, cumulatively, would significantly increase the scale and alter the form of the dwelling. 5. The proposed first-floor side extension would sit above an existing ground-floor single storey element of the property and would not project any closer to the boundary with neighbouring dwelling, No. 76. The existing spacing between the properties would therefore be retained. The neighbour’s garage already sits on this shared boundary, meaning the two houses are already positioned close to one another. While the extension would infill the space above the appellant’s ground-floor structure, the area above the neighbour’s garage would continue to provide a clear visual break between the dwellings. During my site visit, I also observed similar spacing between other properties along the street. Taking all of this into account, and considering the overall spaciousness of the plot, the extension would not result in an unduly cramped form of development. 6. The existing gable roof form would be lost, resulting in a bulkier hipped crown roof form. Whilst the proposals would increase the overall mass of the roof, the dwelling would remain broadly comparable in height and would not appear unduly high or over-dominant. The wider street scene contains a mix of roof forms of varying heights, including hipped roofs, and as such the proposed roof form would not appear out of place in this context. 7. The proposed alterations would enlarge the property and alter its scale and form. However, the extended dwelling would maintain the established building line, remain set back from the highway, and sit within a generously sized plot. Whilst parts of Ditton Road are characterised by similarly styled two-storey semi-detached and terraced properties, the appeal property sits at the edge of this grouping, and the wider area exhibits a more varied architectural character and development pattern. Taking all of this into account, although the extended property would be noticeably larger than the existing dwelling, it would not appear unduly prominent or cramped within the street scene. 8. In terms of external materials, the proposed render finish would match the existing dwelling. Moreover, notwithstanding the predominance of brickwork in the area, during my site visit I observed other properties along the road that were also finished in render. The proposed change from red to grey concrete roof tiles would reflect the varied mix of roof finishes along Ditton Road. In view of this, the proposed external materials would sit comfortably within the street scene and would not harm the character or appearance of the dwelling or the wider area. 9. Taking all of the above into account, the proposed development would not unacceptably harm the character or appearance of the dwelling or the area. Therefore, there is no conflict with LP Policy QP3, NP Policy DAT2 or the provisions of the DG. Conditions 10. I attach conditions which are necessary to provide certainty over commencement and to ensure the development proceeds strictly in accordance with the approved plans. 11. The Council requests a condition preventing additional upper-floor windows in the north and south elevations. However, such a condition is unnecessary because Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 already restricts upper-floor side-facing windows. This would provide sufficient protection for neighbouring privacy. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. INSPECTOR