Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Windsor and Maidenhead?
See which design details inspectors found harmful or acceptable in selected local examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 117 of 173
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 27
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 83
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 113
- of 117 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Windsor and Maidenhead LPA (51.485685, −0.69954). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead appeal findings
How extensions and boundaries affected Windsor and Maidenhead street character
The selected examples contain a higher share of allowed appeals than the matched local set, and several give only a conclusion rather than detailed design analysis.
Counted against appeals
Windsor and Maidenhead character concerns
Extension form harmed area character
For the extension and dormer scheme, the Inspector concluded that it harmed area character. The conclusion refers to scale, bulk, massing, proportions and materials.
Boundary treatment was visually prominent
The Inspector concluded that the boundary treatment was unsympathetic and visually prominent, harming the area’s character and appearance.
Front and side extension affected street scene
The Inspector concluded that the single-storey front/side extension had an adverse impact on the street scene.
Helped or needed
Windsor and Maidenhead allowed character findings
Rear extension respected urban grain
The Inspector found the rear extension respected local character, with particular regard to urban grain, layouts, scale, bulk, massing, proportions and materials.
Loft changes caused no harm
The Inspector concluded that the loft conversion, dormer and fenestration changes would not harm the area’s character and appearance. The extract gives no further design detail.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Which scale, bulk, proportions or materials does the refusal criticise?
- Does it say the street scene or boundary treatment would be harmed?
- Can your drawings show how layout and urban grain are respected?
The displayed examples concern extensions, loft changes and boundary treatment, not every proposal type. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
2 examples
16 July 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a loft conversion and creation of dormer, changes to fenestration.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy QP3 of the Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan (2022); or to the Council’s Borough Wide Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2020), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
6 March 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, therefore, the proposal would respect the local character, with particular regard to the urban grain, layouts, scale, bulk, massing, proportions and materials. Consequently, it would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would accord with Policy QP3 of the Borough Local Plan 2013-2033, which expects development to contribute to sustainable high-quality design.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
7 February 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Single storey rear extension, 1st floor front/side extension, 1no rear dormer and changes to the fenestration.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would be in conflict with Policy QP3 of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Local Plan (adopted 2022), which expects new development to contribute towards achieving sustainable high quality design in the Borough, which respects and enhances the local character of the environment, with particular regard to, amongst others, scale, bulk, massing, proportions and materials.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
14 October 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, I find that the boundary treatment is an unsympathetic and visually prominent form which is harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such, the development fails to accord with policy QP3 of the Borough Local Plan 2013-2033, which promotes high-quality design and development to respect and enhance the local environment.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
14 April 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Single storey front/side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the wider area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and would therefore be contrary to Policies QP3 of the LP and DES.01 of the NP. These policies require development to be designed to respect and enhance the local character of an area.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2