# 4 Whurley Way, Maidenhead - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Brennan - **Authority:** Windsor and Maidenhead (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008337 - **Application reference:** 26/00052 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Part single, part two-storey side/rear extension forming a separate two-bedroom (claimed self-build) dwelling on a corner plot, with drop kerbs and parking - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.04 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), L2(1)(d)(i), L2(1)(d)(ii), CC3(1)(d), DP3(2)(b) - **Development plan policies:** RBWM Borough Local Plan 2013-2033 QP3, SP2, EP1, Borough Wide Design Guide SPD 2020, Sustainability SPD 2024 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions of future occupiers, climate change measures - **Tags:** s4-substantially-outweighed, l2-1-d, living-conditions, design-refusal, housing-shortfall, self-build-unsecured, fallback, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip, small-scheme ## Summary A proposal to form a separate dwelling as a side extension to a corner semi in Maidenhead was dismissed. The council had a 4.04-year supply and had failed the HDT, and HO7 substantial weight was given to the new home. The S4 presumption was nevertheless disapplied. The adverse effects "substantially outweighed" the benefits: conflict with L2(1)(d)(i) street scene, L2(1)(d)(ii) living standards, and CC3/DP3(2)(b) overheating. ## Issues and findings - **Character — L2(1)(d)(i): FAIL.** The blank elevations and recessed first floor give "an incongruous and visually discordant development", compounded by the "highly visible and prominent corner position" (DL ¶9). "the proposal would not be consistent with the overall street scene … in conflict with policy L2(1)(d)(i) of the Framework" (DL ¶30). - **Living standards — L2(1)(d)(ii): FAIL.** The only private garden is 52.5 sqm at the front and side next to the highway. "soft landscaping is not a reliable or permanent means of providing screening" (DL ¶12). - **Climate — CC3(1)(d), DP3(2)(b): FAIL.** "The proposal also fails to address overheating" (DL ¶31). There is no s106 to secure the carbon-offset review (DL ¶18-19). - **Benefits.** HO7 substantial weight, "especially pertinent" given 4.04 years and HDT failure (DL ¶27). Accessible location (DL ¶29). ## Planning balance S4(1): "the benefits of the proposed development, would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects … As such the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply" (DL ¶32). The development-plan conflict (QP3, SP2, EP1) carried significant weight (DL ¶26). ## What made the difference Three separate policy failures, all expressed as national policy conflicts (L2(1)(d)(i), L2(1)(d)(ii) and CC3/DP3(2)(b)), together cleared the "substantially outweighed" bar despite HO7 substantial weight and a shortfall. A conventional terrace-end dwelling with a rear garden, as in the appellant's comparators, would likely have passed. ## Transferable points - L2(1)(d)'s qualifying criteria (street scene; daylight, privacy and amenity space) work as free-standing national decision-making tests that count against S4, not only as conditions on the L2 substantial weight (DL ¶30). - An energy statement that does not address overheating conflicts with CC3(1)(d)/DP3(2)(b) (DL ¶31). - A fallback only gets significant weight if it is a real possibility *and* equally or more harmful (DL ¶20-21). - Drafting slip: codes written as "H07", "S03", "S04" (DL ¶27-28). ## Policy findings - **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** "the proposal would not be consistent with the overall street scene … in conflict with policy L2(1)(d)(i)" — blank rear/side elevations, awkward stepped roof on prominent corner (DL 8-10, 30) - **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail.** 52.5 sqm garden (SPD 55 sqm) wholly to front/side beside highway, overlooked; hedge screening not reliable (DL 11-14, 30) - **CC3(1)(d): fail.** energy assessment omits overheating/cooling hierarchy; no s106 for carbon offset review (DL 17-19, 31) - **DP3(2)(b): fail.** overheating not addressed (DL 31); DP3(3) "should be refused" not invoked — fed into S4 balance - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** cited as "H07"; 4.04-year supply (10 March 2026) and HDT failed (DL 27) - **TR3: benefit.** code mapped by harvester — walking distance of buses and Maidenhead station (DL 29) - **S4(1): fail.** cited as "S04"; "benefits … would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects … the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply" (DL 28, 32) - **fallback: neutral (limited weight).** approved two-storey side extension a real possibility but less harmful, so limited weight (DL 20-21) - **self-build: neutral (limited weight).** no register evidence or legal mechanism; BNG self-build exemption lost but de minimis exemption applied (DL 23-25) ## Key facts - Council supply 4.04 years at 10 March 2026 and HDT not met (DL 27) - Proposed garden 52.48 sqm against SPD 55 sqm, located beside highway (DL 11-12) - Parties were consulted on the revised Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008337 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/684ccf60-603b-4ce5-bac2-35eb5fadb68b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008337.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.