®Planning appeal decision
8 Clare Road, Maidenhead, SL6 4DG
Planning appeal 3369837 at 8 Clare Road, Maidenhead, SL6 4DG (Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead) was dismissed on 2 July 2026 by Inspector Buchanan R, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: the effect of the development on the character and appearance of No.8 Clare Road and the area.
Without planning permission, the erection of a building with associated patio, walls, steps and covered pergola
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- other · Householder developments
- Inspector
- Buchanan R
- Postcode
- SL6 4DG
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- the effect of the development on the character and appearance of No.8 Clare Road and the area
- its effect on the living conditions of the occupants of No.8 with regard to private outdoor amenity space and on the living conditions of the occupants of No.8 and Nos.6 and 10 Clare Road with regard to outlook
What decided it
The development causes significant harm to character and appearance and appreciable harm to living conditions, conflicting with Policy QP3 of the development plan, and the fallback position under permitted development rights provides limited weight in support.
The private benefit to the appellant of the development was given little weight as a personal preference, set against significant weight attributed to harm to character and appearance and living conditions, with no other considerations to indicate the appeal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy QP3 of the Borough Local Plan, February 2022Principle 8.4 of the Council's design guidance
- Judgments
- Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling BC & others [2017] EWCA Civ 1314; Gambone v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 952 (Admin); Burge v SSE [1988] JPL 487; Lough & Others v FSS [2004] 1WLR 2557; Makanjuola v SSCLG & Waltham Forest LBC [2013] EWHC 3528 (Admin); Ioannou v SSCLG & Enfield LBC [2014] EWCA Civ 1432
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 appliedThe 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
More decisions in Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2026
- Notice upheld24 September 20263353235Sunnyside Stanwell Road, Horton, Slough, SL3 9PE
- Notice upheld24 September 20263353234Sunnyside Stanwell Road, Horton, Slough, SL3 9PE
- Notice varied and upheld17 September 202633621832 Aston Mead, Windsor, SL4 5PW
- Notice upheld10 August 20263369085Land to the Side of 16 Halfway Houses, Maidenhead Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 6PP
- Notice upheld30 June 2026335779426 Sawyers Crescent, Maidenhead, SL6 3ND
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.