Planning appeal decision
29 Slough Road, Datchet, Slough, SL3 9AP
Planning appeal 3321814 at 29 Slough Road, Datchet, Slough, SL3 9AP (Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead) was dismissed on 10 April 2024 by Inspector Mileham P, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether the proposal would be in a suitable location for residential development having regard to flood risk, including the provisions of the sequential and exceptions tests.
the retention of existing dwelling and new building accommodating 6 x 2 bedroom flats, access route, car parking and landscaping on land to the rear
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Mileham P
- Postcode
- SL3 9AP
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the proposal would be in a suitable location for residential development having regard to flood risk, including the provisions of the sequential and exceptions tests
- The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area
- The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos. 28 and 29 Ruscombe Gardens
- The effect of the proposal on nearby trees
- Whether the proposal would secure sufficient biodiversity net gain and avoid harm protected and priority species
- Whether the proposal complies with adopted policy having regard to climate change
What decided it
The proposal fails the sequential test for flood risk and would introduce residential development in an area at high probability of flooding without adequate flood resilience measures or safe egress, which is a clear reason for refusal under the Framework.
Although the proposal would provide 6 residential units and economic and social benefits afforded moderate weight, these do not outweigh the failure to satisfy the sequential flood risk test, harm to character and appearance, harm to living conditions of neighbouring properties, and insufficient evidence of biodiversity net gain and tree protection, particularly as the site's flood risk designation removes the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy NR1Policy NR2Policy NR3Policy QP3Policy SP2Policy DAT2Policy DAT8
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 135Paragraph 139Paragraph 173
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision


More decisions in Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2024
- Allowed7 September 20266008689Primrose Farm, Bradcutts Lane, Cookham Dean, Maidenhead, SL6 9TL
- Allowed9 July 20266002609Former Highway House, Norreys Drive, Maidenhead, SL6 4FL
- Allowed12 March 20263373234Land Adj. Newtonside Orchard, Burfield Road, Old Windsor, Windsor, SL4 2RE
- Dismissed10 March 20266002014Salon 227 227 Coppermill Road, Wraysbury, Staines, TW19 5NW
- Dismissed12 December 20253371773Crown Farm, Eton Wick Road, Eton Wick, Windsor And Maidenhead, SL4 6PG
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®