Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt development in Windsor and Maidenhead?
Learn which Green Belt harm troubled inspectors and which site details helped selected proposals avoid inappropriate development.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 48 of 173
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 10
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 36
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 37
- of 48 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
Green Belt openness and extension scale in Windsor and Maidenhead
A selected allowed extract gives policy background rather than the Inspector’s analysis, limiting the comparison with the dismissed examples.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt harm in garage cases
A small openness loss mattered
The detached garage was judged inappropriate and caused a small loss of openness, with both harms carrying substantial weight.
Other considerations fell short
For the garage conversion with an extra storey, other considerations did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm, including openness.
Helped or needed
Details that avoided Green Belt inappropriateness
Previously developed land limited harm
Partial redevelopment of previously developed land was found not to cause substantial harm to Green Belt openness.
Large plot and limited visibility
Despite greater floorspace, the large plot, scale, siting, design and limited visibility meant the extension was not a disproportionate addition.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal call the proposal inappropriate Green Belt development?
- Does it identify any loss of openness?
- Does it address plot size, siting, design or visibility?
The selected cases involve garages, redevelopment and extensions, so their site facts may not match yours. 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
3 examples
23 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
part single-storey/part two-storey, side/rear extension and alterations to fenestration.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
As such, I conclude that the proposal would be the partial redevelopment of previously developed land which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. It would consequently comply with the exception set out in Framework paragraph 154 g) and would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. A case for special circumstances is not therefore required and it is not necessary to consider the other exceptions. There would be no conflict with Policy QP5 of the LP or the Green Belt aims of the Framework.
Paragraph 9 · Source pages 2, 3
16 May 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing outbuilding and erection of ancillary replacement outbuilding.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in the appeal is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and the
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Saved Policy GB2 of The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan ([name] 2003) (the ‘Local Plan’) is generally consistent with the Framework in this regard as it seeks to ensure that replacement buildings in the green belt do not result in a material increase in the scale of development at a site. Saved Policy GB3 of the Local Plan concerns new residential dwellings and is therefore not applicable. Policy SP1 of the Borough Local Plan (2013-2033) [name] proposed changes October 2019 (published for consultation November 2019) (the ‘Submission Version Local Plan’) seeks to ensure that the green belt will be protected from inappropriate development.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
13 July 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
Two storey side/rear extension, 1x side and 1x rear dormer windows, and alteration to fenestration.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) and any relevant development plan policies. Appeal Decision APP/ T0355/D/20/3266022
Paragraph 3 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
Notwithstanding that the proposal would lead to a substantial cumulative increase in floorspace over the original dwelling, I find that, due to the large plot size combined with the scale, siting and design of the proposed extension and that it would not be easily visible from [address], the proposal on balance, does not represent a disproportionate addition to the original dwelling. Therefore, the proposal does not conflict with Policy GB4 of the Local Plan and should not be considered as inappropriate development within the Green Belt as described by the Framework.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
22 July 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Erection of a detached garage following demolition of existing garage’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt; and • Whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt that would result in a small loss of openness. The inappropriateness and the harm to openness carry substantial weight. The Framework establishes that development should therefore not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3
25 February 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “Conversion of existing garage additional single storey on existing garage”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I am required to give substantial weight to the harm the development would cause to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. Individually or cumulatively, the weights I have attached to the other considerations do not clearly outweigh this harm. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.
Paragraph 18 · Source page 3