First floor side extensions to roof and floor plan

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: 6012380 Charbon House, 185A Courthouse Road, Maidenhead SL6 6HX • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Martin Wills against the decision of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. • The application Ref is 26/00815. • The development proposed is first floor side extensions to roof and floor plan. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for first floor side extensions to roof and floor plan at Charbon House, 185A Courthouse Road, Maidenhead SL6 6HX in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/00815, 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 hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: C.R-420, C.R-421, C.R-422, C.R-423 C.R-424, C.R-425 Preliminary Matters 2. During the course of this appeal, the updated National Planning Policy Framework (2026) (‘the Framework’) was published. I am satisfied that this does not alter my assessment, as the relevant provisions remain materially the same in respect of the main issue of this appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 4. Taken together, Policy QP3 of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Local Plan (2022) (LP), the Maidenhead Neighbourhood Plan (2026) (NP) and the Framework require high-quality and sustainable development. Proposals should respect local character and use appropriate materials, scale and massing. 5. The Council assessed the development on the premise that the proposal would constitute dormer-type roof alterations and should therefore be judged against the Borough Wide Design Guide (BWDG) (2020) requirements relating specifically to dormer extensions. Appeal Decision 6012380 2 Principle 10.5 requires set-backs from the sides and ridgelines of the roof, and limits on the proportion of the roof slope occupied. 6. However, based on their form, massing, construction, and the way they would rise directly from the existing elevation, the proposed additions do not exhibit the characteristics of dormer extensions. The proposed structures would continue the line of the ground-floor front wall directly upward into the roof, creating full gable-end features rather than projecting dormer units. Their massing, roof form and integration with the main elevation are materially different from dormers. Accordingly, the proposals fall to be considered as gable-end extensions. 7. The BWDG allows for gable-end extensions where full gables form part of the existing street character, with Principle 10.5 stating that roof alterations should be sympathetic and subservient to the design of the main building and should not undermine the visual amenities of an area. On my site visit I observed that gable forms are common within the locality, including on neighbouring dwellings within the small enclave of properties to the rear of Courthouse Road, and more widely along Courthouse Road. The presence of gable features is therefore an established characteristic of the local built form. 8. The existing front roof plane, within which the proposed extensions would sit, is a large and visually dominant slope that is not typical of the surrounding built form. The proposed extensions would be of limited width and would sit below the existing ridge height, ensuring they appear sympathetic and subservient to the main dwelling. They would break up the expansive roof plane and add architectural interest, resulting in a form that respects the established character of the 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 and the provisions of the NP, BWDG and the Framework. 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. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. INSPECTOR