Appeal 3275134
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
4 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
a single storey side extension and alterations to first floor side fenestration.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene within which it sits.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal relates to a semi-detached dwelling which sits at the end of a cul-de-sac, side on to the main highway of [address]. Several such cul-de-sacs are present along [address] with the end houses sitting side on to the highway behind substantial side gardens. Although some of the houses further along [address] sit closer to the highway, the arrangement I have explained contributes to a welcome feeling of spaciousness along this particular part of the street scene.
The proposed extension would be about as wide as the host dwelling. Although it would be single storey with a pitched roof, it would be a substantial structure with a large footprint. As a result, it would be viewed as a disproportionate addition to the host dwelling. Furthermore, the proposed extension would occupy a large proportion of the garden area to the side of the dwelling, significantly reducing the feeling of spaciousness. It would be readily visible above the existing boundary hedge and the resulting harm would be widely visible within the street scene. Although additional planting has been www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate suggested, I am not satisfied that this would successfully overcome the visual harm identified.
The appellant argues that a detached single storey outbuilding could be built within the garden of the appeal property under the provisions of permitted development. Whilst no precise details of such a building have been provided, the appellant accepts that it could not be as tall as the proposed extension. On this basis, it would not have a comparable impact. Furthermore, there is no suggestion that there is a reasonable prospect of such a building actually being built.
For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed single storey extension would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and it would harmfully reduce the spacious character of the street scene within which it sits. In such terms, the proposal conflicts with saved policies DG1 and H14 of the adopted Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan and policies QP1 and QP3 of the emerging Borough Local Plan, which collectively promote high quality design which respects and responds to local context.
The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant do not outweigh this harm and policy conflict therefore the appeal does not succeed.
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 831No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 22 September 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 8 September 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3275134
- Application reference
- 20/03491
- 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
- Unknown
- 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
- 39 m²
- 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 16 May 2021
- Valid date
- 21 May 2021
- Start date
- 12 August 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 February 2020
- Appeal decision date
- 22 September 2021
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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 3596
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21