Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Windsor and Maidenhead?
See which neighbour effects were identified and which claims the displayed extracts leave unexplained.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 30 of 173
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 21
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 28
- of 30 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
Neighbours’ privacy and outlook in Windsor and Maidenhead
The allowed example records the Council’s concern, not the Inspector’s reason for allowing it. Its value as a direct comparison is therefore limited.
Counted against appeals
Privacy, outlook and unresolved neighbour harm
Privacy and outlook at adjoining homes
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would harm adjoining occupiers’ privacy and outlook.
Unacceptable harm, without shown analysis
The displayed extract concludes that an occupier’s living conditions would be harmed, without showing the analysis behind it.
Car-sales use still harmed neighbours
This edge-of-scope example concludes that the car-sales use would harm neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions, without detailed neighbour analysis.
Helped or needed
No stated allowance on neighbour effects
Allowance reason not shown
The allowed extract records a Council concern about loss of light, visual dominance and overbearing effects, but gives no Inspector reason for allowing it.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify privacy loss or worse outlook at adjoining homes?
- Does it explain the claimed harm rather than only state a conclusion?
- Does it cite loss of light, visual dominance or overbearing effects?
Appeal 85659 concerns a car-sales use, so it is an edge-of-scope comparison. 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
1 example
2 December 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the relocation of front entrance door, raised front terrace, single storey side extension, new flat roof, raising of the ridge, addition of a first floor, new and alterations to steps, new balustrades, 1no. rear Juliet balcony, alterations to existing raised rear decking, fenestration and external finishes and 1no. replacement two storey outbuilding ancillary to the main dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on living conditions of neighbours.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Council considers that neighbours' living conditions at No 38 would be harmed via the scale and proximity of the planned works leading to loss of light, visual dominance and overbearing effects.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
25 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
part single part two storey side/rear extension, 1 no. front dormer, alterations to existing roof, solar panels, new patio with steps.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character of the host dwelling and street scene; • living conditions of the occupiers of [address] of outlook; and • the risk of flooding.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As such, the proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of no. [address] contrary to Policy QP3 of the Local Plan in so far as it seeks high quality design and high quality amenity space.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
13 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
2no. front rooflights, enlargement of the existing basement, 1no. rear dormer, alterations to fenestration, new front and rear terraces and steps to facilitate the subdivision of the existing dwelling to form 1no. three bedroom dwelling and 1no. one bedroom basement flat.
Issue identified by the Inspector
Having regard to the above, the main issues are: • whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to internal space, the provision of external amenity space, outlook, daylight and sunlight; • whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [name]. • whether the proposal makes adequate provision for cycle and waste storage; and, • whether the proposal incorporates adequate measures to adapt to and mitigate climate change.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would not provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to internal space, the provision of private amenity space, outlook, daylight or sunlight. As such it would conflict with [name] 5 and QP 3 and Policy RES 01 of the Windsor Neighbourhood Plan 2021 (the NP). Taken together, these policies require, amongst other things, for development to provide satisfactory levels of residential amenity for future occupiers and a quality internal and external environment with usable outdoor amenity space, which respects privacy. The proposal would also conflict with the provisions of the [name] in respect of these matters, as set out above.
Paragraph 26 · Source page 4
2 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. • the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers on [address] with regard to privacy and outlook.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taken as a whole, the proposal would harm the living conditions of occupiers of the adjoining dwellings on [address], with regard to privacy and outlook. It therefore conflicts with Policy QP3 of the LP which seeks to ensure no unacceptable effect on the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of adjoining properties.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
10 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the change of use of ground floor from Class E (hairdressers) to sui generis (car sales).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) including the effect upon the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the character of the area; • whether the proposal meets the day to day requirements or provides additional benefits to the local community; • whether the proposal increases the risk of flooding; • the effect of the proposal on the safety of highway users; • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise, disturbance and pollution; and, • if inappropriate, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, are clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and it harms openness, to which the Framework requires me to attach substantial weight. Furthermore, the proposal is harmful to the character of the area and to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal also compromises the ability of the local community to meet their day to day requirements and there is insufficient evidence to satisfy me that the proposal is not harmful to the safety of highway users or that the proposal does not increase the risk of flooding. The moderate economic benefits that result from the proposed use and the potential to avoid the vacancy or underutilisation of the appeal premises are not considerations that clearly outweigh the harm arising from inappropriateness and other harm.
Paragraph 46 · Source page 7