A family has been spared a neighbour's plan to build a new office extension that they say would let people ‘peer in’ on their bathroom.

Architect firm WaM wanted permission to build a roof extension on top of 119-120 High Street in Eton town centre.

But neighbour David Gibbons told councillors that his young family would lose their privacy – and that neighbours felt the same. He said: “I’m speaking tonight on behalf of my wife, myself, my 16 month old son, and a daughter to be born in January.

“Our bathroom and kitchen would be directly overlooked by this. I don’t really want people peering in at my bathroom and kitchen.”

READ MORE: Developers revive blocked plan for ‘third largest film studios’ in UK near Slough

Mr Gibbons added that he’d spoken to his neighbours and that he spoke on behalf of ‘every neighbouring resident'.

Councillors from the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (RBWM) debated the proposals at a meeting on Thursday, August 1.

WaM argued that the new offices would benefit the town’s economy. And Kevin Scott of the Solve planning consultancy argued that councillors should approve the scheme. He said there are ‘various examples of mansard roofs which are already an established part of the character of the conservation area including those which are part of unlisted buildings’.

He added that even if the extension did harm the area it would be ‘at the very low end of the very large sliding scale'.

Councillor Evan Davies had also asked for RBWM’s Windsor and Ascot development committee to approve the scheme. He said the new offices ‘would be of great benefit to Eton’s day time economy'.

Council planning officers said the development would not cause an ‘unacceptable level of overlooking’ onto neighbouring flats. They said ‘some degree of overlooking is to be expected’ in town centre locations.

But they still recommended that councillors refuse to grant planning permission as the high street is in the Eton conservation area – meaning its architecture has to be protected.

National planning laws mean that the benefits of development on conservation areas have to outweigh the harm.

Planning officer Briony Franklin said the developers hadn’t shown that there was enough need for new offices in Eton to justify the extension.

She told councillors: “The proposed development would provide a small increase to the office floorspace and it has not been evidenced through the application that this floorspace is necessary for the existing office use to remain viable.”

Councillor Jodie Grove agreed, noting that the existing mansard roofs in Eton ‘are historical so there is no real comparison’.

She said: “I haven’t head any real concrete benefit to extending this office.” The committee voted unanimously to refuse planning permission.