Appeal 3313680
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 minor side extension beyond approved ground floor extension (22/01796/CPD), first floor side extension and minor extension to front elevation.
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 an end of terrace house that is stepped forward from its immediate neighbour, mirroring that of [address] at the opposite end of the row. The plot is wedge shaped, being widest at its front and tapering to the rear adjacent to a parking court.
There exists a high conifer hedge behind a brick wall providing a privacy screen to the side of the house and which prevents any views into no 11’s private amenity space and beyond (to the east). Furthermore, conifer hedging within one of the rear gardens of a property fronting [name] would largely prevent views of the extension from [name] to the rear.
However, the extensions would almost double the width of the principal elevation of the host dwelling. Whilst this would be stepped down to its northern end, where accommodating a WC at ground floor level and part of the proposed bedroom no 4 at first floor level, the bulk of the extension would maintain the existing ridge height and by virtue of its forward siting as a whole, the proposal would fail to appear subservient in form to the host dwelling. This conflicts with both principles 10.1 and 10.3 of the Council’s Borough-wide Design Guide, a material consideration in the determination of this appeal.
I note references to the extensions that have been built on to boundaries opposite the appeal site and whilst it is not for me to comment on the appropriateness of these, or otherwise, I noted that they were subordinate in form with stepped down ridge lines and stepped back narrower front elevations.
All in all I consider that whilst there may not be any overdevelopment of the appeal plot per se, I consider that the proposed extensions would not appear subservient to the host dwelling and would fail to respond positively to the visual amenities of the locality.
I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the area and would be contrary to 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. For the reasons previously cited, the scheme would also run counter to the advice as set out within the Borough-wide Design Guide.
Section 05
Conclusion
Having regard 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
- 3313680
- Application reference
- 22/02528/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
- 85 m²
- Number of residences
- 1
- 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
- 21 December 2022
- Valid date
- 21 December 2022
- Start date
- 9 February 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 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
- 31458
- 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