Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Notice upheld30 June 20263357794

26 Sawyers Crescent, MAIDENHEAD, SL6 3ND

without planning permission, the erection of a boundary treatment, consisting of one electric metal vehicle entrance gate, one metal pedestrian gate, brick pillars and timber fencing with integral concrete posts

Authority
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
Appeal type
enforcement · Enforcement Notice
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
other · Householder developments
Inspector
Robbie G

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • Whether the means of enclosure constitutes a breach of planning control (ground c)
  • Whether the steps required by the notice exceed what is necessary to remedy the breach (ground f)
  • Whether the compliance period is reasonable (ground g)

What decided it

The means of enclosure exceeds 1 metre in height adjacent to a highway used by vehicular traffic and therefore falls outside the permitted development provisions of the GPDO, constituting a breach of planning control that must be remedied by complete removal.

Judgments cited: Tapecrown Ltd v FSS & the Vale of the White Horse DC [2006] EWCA Civ 1744; Garland v MHLG [1968] 20 P&CR 93

The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; 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 other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.