Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed18 June 20243318095

57-61 The Green and 1-3 Station Road, Wraysbury, Staines, TW18 5NA

Planning appeal 3318095 at 57-61 The Green and 1-3 Station Road, Wraysbury, Staines, TW18 5NA (Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead) was dismissed on 18 June 2024 by Inspector Spencer D, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: The effect of the proposed developments on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

change of use of ground floor of No.57 from takeaway to office. External alterations to 59 The Green and change of use from car repairs to 2 x offices (ground floor) and 1 no. one bed flat (first floor). Two storey rear extension to 61 The Green and conversion of 3 bed dwelling to 1no. one bed and 1 no. two bedroom flats. Alterations and extensions to 1-3 Station Road and change of use from part ground floor retail and part domestic to form 4no. one bed, 1 no. two bed and 1no. three bed flats. Erection of 2no. semi-detached houses (1no. two bed and 1no. three bed) to rear of nos. 5-7 Station Road

Appeal type
minor · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
residential · Change of use
Inspector
Spencer D
Postcode
TW19 5NA

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • The effect of the proposed developments on the character and appearance of the surrounding area
  • The effect of the proposals on the setting of 'The Perseverance' Public House, a Grade II listed building
  • Whether the proposed developments represent an acceptable form of development having regard to their flood zone location and the provisions of the NPPF
  • Whether the proposed developments would provide an appropriate mix of dwellings
  • Whether the proposed developments make adequate provision for affordable housing in accordance with development plan policy
  • Whether the proposed developments would appropriately minimise carbon emissions
  • Whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for the occupiers of No.11 Station Road and for future occupants of the proposed development (Appeal A only)

What decided it

The failure of both schemes to pass the sequential test for flood risk, which provided a clear reason for refusal under NPPF paragraph 11d) and disengaged the presumption in favour of sustainable development, combined with significant harm to character and appearance, unbalanced housing mix, and lack of secured affordable housing.

The modest social benefits of housing delivery and moderate environmental and economic benefits of sustainable location and office provision were outweighed by the significant social and environmental harms of development in high to medium flood risk areas, the unbalanced housing mix lacking affordable housing, and the detrimental impact on local character from poor design, with Appeal A additionally harmed by poor living conditions for future occupiers.

What the Inspector cited

Development plan policies
Policy QP3Policy HE1Policy NR1Policy NR2Policy SP2Policy HO2Policy HO3Policy NP/HOU1Policy NP/HOU2Policy NP/HOU3Policy NP/SUSTDEV 02
National Planning Policy Framework
Paragraph 11Paragraph 60Paragraph 63Paragraph 124Paragraph 135Paragraph 165Paragraph 166Paragraph 167Paragraph 168Paragraph 173Paragraph 174
Judgments
Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE 1982

How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.

See how each was applied

The decision letter

Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.

With an account

What an account adds to this decision

67 other decided appeals within two kilometres of this site. In the app every dot opens its decision, and its letter wherever one was published, and you can draw your own site to see what has been decided around it.AllowedDismissedSplitThis decision
An appeal decision in the app, with the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out beside the letter
Every letter, there to read. We pick out the main issues, the policies and the judgments cited, so you can work through the letter faster.
Searching the full text of appeal decision letters in the app
Search inside every letter. By words or by meaning, filtered by authority, outcome, appeal type and procedure, with every locatable decision on the map and the Inspector named on each.
Start your free trial

More decisions in Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2024

  1. Allowed27 October 20266007126
    Grove Park Industrial Estate Waltham Road, White Waltham, Maidenhead, SL6 3JF
  2. Allowed26 October 20266014376
    Roseland, High Road, Cookham, Maidenhead, SL6 9JS
  3. Dismissed21 October 20266009694
    Land Adjacent to Stud Green Farm, Sturt Green, Holyport, SL62JH
  4. Dismissed9 October 20266009005
    59 to 61 and Land to the Rear of 59 to 61 St Leonard's Road, Windsor, SL4 3BX
  5. Notice upheld24 September 20263353235
    Sunnyside Stanwell Road, Horton, Slough, SL3 9PE

The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every appeal around it, with its letter to read and the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out.