Appeal 3312635
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
5 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
for a first floor rear dormer.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site relates to a semi-detached house currently being extended and with a second floor dormer roof extension under construction which, in itself, is a sizable addition to the host dwelling.
The proposal before me would comprise a further box dormer at first floor level over a single storey rear extension that is yet to be completed. Combined with the previously permitted extensions this scheme would appear as an incongruous and alien feature that would not be sympathetic to the design and scale of the existing house.
I acknowledge that the appellant requires extra space to accommodate a growing family, however I consider that this is very much a situation of form following function and notwithstanding the reference to a box dormer extension that has been constructed at [address], ultimately each case must be assessed on its own merits.
I am not in a position to doubt that the proposed dormer would not break a 45° line being taken from both houses either side of no 18, although this has not been demonstrated on a drawing. Notwithstanding this any benefits of the proposal are clearly outweighed by the harm that would ensue to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area.
The proposed dormer would be poorly positioned and would not be sympathetic or subordinate to the design or scale of the existing house, contrary to the Borough-wide Design Guide and in particular principles 10.1 and 10.4 as set out therein. The appeal proposal also would conflict with Policy QP3 of the Borough Local Plan 2013 – 2033 (adopted February 2022) which requires new development to contribute towards achieving sustainable high quality design that respects and enhances the local character of the environment, paying particular regard to scale, bulk, massing and proportions.
Section 05
Conclusion
Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed.
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 297No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 April 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 27 March 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3312635
- Application reference
- 22/02514
- 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 6 December 2022
- Valid date
- 6 December 2022
- Start date
- 9 February 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 2 November 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 19 April 2023
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
- 31448
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21