Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

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 works

One-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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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