Appeal 3279672

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of the existing conservatory and detached garage, and erection of a replacement single storey rear extension and detached garage at [site address] , Windsor, [postcode] in accordance with the application, Ref 21/00207/FUL, dated 25 February 2021, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: [name]. TW005a Feb.2021 [name], [name]. TW006a Feb. 2021 [name], [name]. TW004b [name] 21 and [name] TW003b [name] 21.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The proposed development includes a replacement detached garage, the Council raise no objection in respect of this element of the development and have since confirmed that the works would constitute permitted development. I have no reason to consider otherwise and have therefore not considered this element of the development further.

The main issue in the appeal is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the development plan.

The appeal property is an attractive two storey detached dwelling set within a spacious plot.

Paragraph 149 of the Framework states that new buildings are inappropriate in the Green Belt unless they fall within the given list of exceptions. One exception is the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

Saved Policy GB1 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan January 2002 (the ‘Local Plan’) was adopted before the publication of the Framework, but is generally consistent with the Framework. The supporting text to the policy states that the Council will normally consider any increase to be “disproportionate” if it exceeds 40% of the gross floor area of the original building, and extensions will be expected to be located sympathetically and designed so that they do not have an adverse impact on the rural character of the locality. The reference to the 40% increase in floor area is not contained within the policy wording itself and that the Framework does not set a limit, leaving it to the decision maker to determine whether the extension is disproportionate. I have considered both the context and appearance of the property as well as the uplift in floorspace when considering proportionality.

The Council has identified that the original floor area of the dwelling was 107.7 sqm. The dwelling has been extended a number of times and the existing floor area for the dwelling is currently 165 sqm. That is a 53% increase in floorspace from the original dwellinghouse. The proposed extension would increase the floorspace to 186.8sqm which would equate to a 73% increase in floor area. The appellant accepts these figures and I have therefore no reason to conclude otherwise.

Whilst this calculation cannot be solely relied upon to assess proportionality, it does provide an appropriate indication of proportionality of the proposed development. Whilst the proposed extensions and alterations would create additional floorspace, the extension is modest and would remain in keeping with the scale of the dwelling. The planning drawings demonstrate that the design of the extension would complement the original house and would not add unacceptable bulk or massing to the dwelling. Therefore, notwithstanding the further increase in floorspace, taking into account the relatively limited increase involved, I do not consider that the proposed extensions would represent a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building.

For these reasons, I find that the proposal would not comprise inappropriate development within the Green Belt as defined by the Framework and Policy GB1 of the Local Plan. The proposal would also accord with Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document ([name] 2008) which seeks, amongst other things to protect the green belt from inappropriate development.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council. Where necessary, and in the interests of clarity and precision, I have slightly altered the conditions to better reflect the advice in the Framework and PPG.

I have imposed the standard conditions relating to the commencement of development and specifying the relevant plans in order to provide certainty. These specify the material of construction, so an additional condition relating to materials is not necessary in this case.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.