®Planning appeal decision
31 Temple Road, Windsor, SL4 1HP
Planning appeal 6003174 at 31 Temple Road, Windsor, SL4 1HP (Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead) was dismissed on 13 May 2026 by Inspector O'Neill A, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: 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.
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 bedroo m basement flat
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- O'Neill A
- Postcode
- SL4 1HP
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- 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 Inner Windsor Conservation Area
- whether the proposal makes adequate provision for cycle and waste storage
- whether the proposal incorporates adequate measures to adapt to and mitigate climate change
What decided it
The application of policies protecting designated heritage assets provides a strong reason for refusing the proposal, and the benefits of a single dwelling do not outweigh the conflicts with the development plan regarding living conditions, heritage harm, cycle and waste storage, and carbon emissions.
The less than substantial harm to the conservation area, weighed against the limited public benefits of a single dwelling and the failure to provide adequate living conditions and meet development plan requirements for cycle and waste storage and carbon emissions, tipped against the proposal; the presumption in favour of sustainable development did not apply due to the strong heritage protection reasons for refusal.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy HO 5Policy QP 3Policy RES 01Policy HE 1Policy HER.01Policy IF 2Policy SP 2Policy EP 1
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 215
- Judgments
- Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [JPL, 1982, P37]; Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin)
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
- Dismissed28 July 20266008433Jones House, High Street, Bray, SL6 2AH
- Allowed15 July 20266005399Land South of Garden Cottage, Fifield Road, Fifield, SL6 2NZ
- Dismissed11 March 202633717785 Llanvair Drive, Ascot, Windsor And Maidenhead, SL5 9HS
- Dismissed10 March 20266002014Salon 227 227 Coppermill Road, Wraysbury, Staines, TW19 5NW
- Dismissed26 January 20263372603Land Adjacent To 6 Stuart Close Windsor , Windsor, SL4 5NU
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.