Appeal 3347812
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
7 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
proposed first floor loft conversion over existing ground floor structure with side facing dormers, Velux windows and front and rear hip-to-gable conversions. Further proposed single storey side and rear extension to existing ground floor area while adding new lower ground floor.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed first floor loft conversion over existing ground floor structure with side facing dormers, Velux windows and front and rear hip-to-gable conversions. Further proposed single storey side and rear extension to existing ground floor area while adding new lower ground floor at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 24/00486/FULL, and subject to the following conditions;
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers - 098: Block Plan, 099: Site Location Plan; 102: Proposed Lower Ground Floor Plan; 102: [name] and [name]; 103: [name]; and, the proposed external materials specified on the planning application form.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
After the Council issued their decision notice for the appeal scheme, the appellants submitted a revised scheme for part of the development. The Council granted consent on 2 August 2024 for the ‘creation of a lower ground floor with new steps and balcony over, single storey rear extension, single storey side extension, 1 no. new flue and alterations to external finishes and fenestration following part demolition of existing single storey element’ (Ref: 24/01372). As a result, the remaining matter of contention relates to the proposed development to the roof, including the proposed dormers.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the host building and the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a detached bungalow, which has a hipped roof that features a flat roof dormer window. The dwelling is sited close to a bend in the road. Three sides of the dwelling are visible from the highway. The level of land drops to the rear of the site. The area is predominantly residential in character and features dwellings that range in height from single storey to three storeys. There are a variety of roof designs in the locality, including gable ends, hip roofs and flat roofs.
Dormer windows of various sizes and designs are prominent within the street scene. The building adjacent to the appeal site has had a hip to gable conversion and has three pitched roof dormer windows on both its front and rear facing roof slopes, which cumulatively occupy a sizeable proportion of the roof slope. I also observed other flat roof dormers in the locality, some which are far larger in size than the dormers proposed in this case and occupy a greater proportion of the roof slope than the appeal scheme. While full details of the circumstances of the other dormers are not before me, large, flat roof dormers are clearly part of the character of the area.
The proposal seeks to convert both hip ends of the dwelling to gables and provide a new dormer window on both roof slopes. The ridge height of the dwelling would remain the same. At present, the south-west elevation of the dwelling has two high level ground floor windows and a hipped roof, which slopes away from the highway. This side of the building is relatively bland and does little to address the public realm. The provision of a feature window within both gable ends, would provide additional visual interest, particularly on the elevation which faces the highway. The proposed hip to gable conversion would not appear out of character on the host property and would be in keeping with other dwellings in the immediate locality.
The proposal seeks to demolish the existing dormer and provide a new flat roof dormer on each roof slope. The Council’s Borough Wide Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, June 2020, among other things states that roof alterations should be sympathetic and subservient to the design of the main building and should not occupy more than half the width and depth of the roof slope. While one of the proposed dormer windows would occupy more than half of the width of the roof slope, both dormers would be set down from the ridge, set in from the overhanging eaves and would be set well in from the sides of the dwelling, allowing a reasonable proportion of the roof slope to remain visible. Consequently, I do not find that the proposed dormers would appear unduly prominent on the host building and would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building or the area, where dormer windows are a prominent feature.
As the proposed rooflights are modest in size and would be flush with the roof slope, they would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building or the area.
For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. The proposal would comply with Policy QP3 of the Royal Borough of [site address] Borough Local Plan 2013 – 2033, adopted February 2022. This policy among other things requires that new development is of high quality design, which respects and enhances the local character of the area.
Section 06
Conditions
In the interest of certainty, conditions specifying timescales and that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans are required. A condition regarding external materials is not required, as details of external materials are specified on the application form.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, having regard to the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, subject to conditions.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 5777No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 9 December 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 26 November 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3347812
- Application reference
- 24/00486/FULL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
- Planning authority code
- E06000040
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 10 July 2024
- Valid date
- 10 July 2024
- Start date
- 25 July 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 April 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 9 December 2024
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- No
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 61417
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21