Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead appeal evidence
Refused over GPDO limits in Windsor and Maidenhead?
Learn which local GPDO problems were cited and what to check against your refusal notice.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 5 of 173
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 5
- of 5 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
GPDO depth and added-storey appearance
The matched local set has no allowed appeal. Appeal 42838 is Green Belt reasoning, not GPDO reasoning.
Counted against appeals
Why Windsor GPDO proposals failed
Rear wall set the depth line
The rear extension exceeded the depth limit when measured from the solid wall below the colonnade.
Added storeys harmed external appearance
Inspectors concluded that the added-storey proposals harmed the dwellinghouse’s external appearance.
Height and bulk conflict was not decisive
One decision said its cited height, scale and bulk conflicts were not decisive in the prior approval appeal.
No allowed example matched
What Windsor GPDO cases still needed to show
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
A correct rear-wall measurement
The dismissal shows that the depth calculation had to start at the solid rear wall beneath the colonnade.
An acceptable added-storey appearance
The dismissal conclusions show that the added-storey proposals still needed to avoid harm to external appearance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal measure your extension from the correct rear wall?
- Does it explain external-appearance harm from an added storey?
- Does it identify height, scale or bulk to address?
No allowed local comparator appears in the matched local set, and some selected examples contain only a conclusion. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Read the reasoning in matched appeal decisions
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.
Dismissed appeal examples
5 examples
26 April 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension no greater than 8m in depth, 3m high with eaves height of 3m.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On this basis, the ‘rear wall’ of this part of the building would be the solid wall underneath the overhanging colonnade. The Technical Guidance states that measurement of an extension beyond a rear wall should be taken from the base of the rear wall of the original house to the outer edge of the wall of the extension. The accompanying diagrams show that overhanging roofs and eaves are not included in this measurement. The extension would extend 8m from the pillars, therefore it would be more than 8m in depth from the rear wall behind. As a result, the proposal would not comply with A.1(g) of the GPDO.
Paragraph 12 · Source pages 2, 3
1 December 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
New electric entrance gates, brick boundary wall and hardstanding.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area; and, 1 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. • whether or not the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons set out above, the development appears to be an exception to inappropriate development in paragraph 149c) of the Framework. Therefore, it would not conflict with the Framework or Policy QP5 of the BLP, the relevant provisions of which are set out above. On this basis, there is no need to assess the effects upon openness, or, whether any other considerations amount to very special circumstances. 3 Ref. 04/84753/FULL. 4 Ref. 96/74526/FULL.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 3
26 July 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “the construction of additional storey in materials to match existing. Works include raising brick party walls. Whole party walls are deemed to fall within the meaning of curtilages.”
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are whether prior approval should be granted for the proposal having regard to: • the external appearance of the dwellinghouse, and • the impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse and would conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requirement to achieve high quality design that adds to the quality of an area. Although not determinative in this prior approval appeal, the proposal would conflict with the Borough Local Plan 2013-2033, adopted February 2022, specifically Policy QP3 which seeks to ensure development respects and enhances the local character of the environment with particular regard to scale and bulk.
Paragraph 13 · Source pages 2, 3
26 May 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
new additional storey to existing two storey dwelling house consisting of dual pitch roofs.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether prior approval should be granted for the proposal having regard to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, the proposal would not comply with condition AA.2(3)(a)(ii) of the GPDO and prior approval should be refused. Consideration has been given to the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) only insofar as they are relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval. Although not decisive, the proposal would conflict with Policies QP1 and QP3 of the Local Plan1, which together require development to contribute positively to the places in which they are located and pay particular regard to height and scale. Likewise, the proposal would go against the aims of principles 7.6 and 10.1 of the Design Guide2, which together look to ensure new development reflects and integrates well with the heights and bulk of existing buildings and not appear out of keeping. The proposal would also conflict with the general design policies of the Framework, which seek to promote development that is sympathetic to local character.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
20 May 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
application for prior approval for construction of two additional storeys to property with a maximum height of 6.35m.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are whether prior approval should be granted for the proposal having regard to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse and the effect of the proposal on protected species.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, the proposed extension would harm the external appearance of the dwellinghouse and would not comply with condition AA.2(3)(a)(ii) of the GPDO and prior approval should be refused.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3