Appeal 6003202

The appeal is dismissed.

The above description was agreed by the appellant following submission of the application.

The main issues are; • Whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies, • The effect of the proposal on Green Belt openness, • The effect of the proposal on the setting of the adjoining [name] listed building, [address], and • Whether or not any harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances to justify the proposal.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one the listed exceptions apply. These include, at paragraph 154(c), 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. Policy QP5 of the of the Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Local Plan 2013-2033 (2022) (LP) refers to national policy in the Framework. The Framework clarifies, in this case, that the original building is that which existed on 1 July 1948.

The Council suggests that when taking account of previous extensions, the proposal would result in total additions of 80% to the original floorspace. The Framework does not specify what is to be considered ‘disproportionate’ and there is nothing in local policy or guidance, albeit the Council argues that generally, increases in floorspace up to 50% are considered to be proportionate.

However, the appellant disputes the Council’s figures and provides evidence in the form of early maps which show that originally there was an attached outbuilding to the rear of the dwelling. In addition, the bay window and entrance area are also considered to be part of the original dwelling. When taking account of these areas, noting that at some point the boundary was moved so that ownership of the rear outbuilding changed, the overall increase to the ‘original building’ is considered to be just under 50%.

The photos of the original foundations of the house appear to demonstrate that the bay window and entrance are original. However, the map extracts provided by the appellant which show the rear outbuilding are dated 1932 and it appears that at some point between then and 1970, the boundary was altered. It is therefore unclear whether the outbuilding was still part of the dwelling at the relevant date, that is the building as it existed on 1 July 1948.

However, given that the Council’s 50% limit is not set in any policy or guidance and only appears to relate to floorspace, it is also relevant to consider other factors which relate to size, such as volume, scale and footprint. Whilst no figures are provided in respect of these matters, I saw at the site visit that the previous two storey side extension has already added considerable bulk and volume to the original dwelling. In addition, the proposed rear extension would provide a fairly large footprint and volume compared with the existing relatively modest single storey rear extension.

Overall, having regard to the size of the proposed rear extension and the increased bulk that would be created through it and the proposed new roofs, when taken together with the previously added additions, I consider that the resulting building would be disproportionate in comparison to the size of the original dwelling.

For the avoidance of doubt, I come to this conclusion even when the appellant’s arguments regarding the outbuilding and bay window are accepted as set out in the appeal statement. I consider that the net additions, because of their position, bulk and effect, would still be disproportionate in comparison with the original building. It is not simply the percentage increase that is important but applying the Framework wording of paragraph 153(c), when considering the built additions as a whole, I conclude that the additions would be disproportionate to the original and thus this exception for development within the Green Belt would not be met.

I therefore find that the proposal would fail to satisfy Framework paragraph 154(c) and would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The scheme would not benefit from any of the other exceptions set out in the Framework.

The proposed extension would be sited to the rear of the dwelling and within the existing built envelope of the semi-detached cottages and other dwellings which comprise a built frontage along this part of [site address] . The extension and new roofs as well as the enlarged front canopy would be read as part of this built development and would not have an impact on the visual aspect of openness of the Green Belt.

In terms of the spatial aspect of openness, the additions would by virtue of their size, have an impact. However, as noted above, given the site’s context within a group of dwellings fronting the lane, this would result in only a minor effect on openness.

Overall, I find that Green Belt openness would be preserved.

The Grade II listed [address] Farmhouse is set away from the common boundary with outbuildings and vegetation between it and the dwelling on the appeal site. These features help to screen the listed building and provide a degree of separation. The significance of listed building derives predominantly from its historic and architectural form within its immediate setting. I concur with the Council that the proposal would have no effect on the setting of the listed building and the duty under S66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 would be satisfied. The proposal would also satisfy the policies of the Framework which seek to ensure that heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. Whether or the harm by reason of inappropriateness is outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances to justify the proposal.

As found above, the proposed development comprises inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Substantial weight is to be given to this harm in accordance with Framework paragraph 153. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The appellant has referred to a number of other permissions granted by the Council in respect of Green Belt sites. The scheme at [name] appears to be a modest percentage addition and was not considered disproportionate, differentiating that proposal from the present scheme. [name], very special circumstances were found to justify the approval which, as will be seen below, I have not found in this case. The case at [address] Cottages concerned a larger extension under permitted development rights procedures where Green Belt issues are not relevant to the process.

In respect of the proposal at [address] Cottages, while the percentage increase was quite high, the judgement as to the impact of the proposal was that it would not result in a disproportionate addition to the original dwelling, nor in its context harm the openness of the Green Belt. This is the Framework approach that I have applied in this case where I have found that the scheme would, with other additions, appear disproportionate.

Consequently, for the reasons explained, I am satisfied that none of these are a direct comparison with the current appeal and thus attach limited weight as other examples of Green Belt extensions to justify the appeal scheme.

Whilst the proposal would be well designed, this is expected of all new development to meet the requirements of the Framework and does not help to justify the scheme.

With regard to the extensions to adjoining properties, overall, they do not appear to have been extended to a similar degree as the dwelling on the appeal site, albeit the immediately adjoining cottage has a rear extension to a similar depth as that proposed. In any event, the assessment of whether an addition to a building is disproportionate is related to the size of the original dwelling as set out in the Framework.

I have taken into account that there is no neighbour objection and that Bray Parish Council recommend approval of the scheme. Additionally, no neighbouring amenity would be adversely affected by the scheme. However, it is the assessment against the Green Belt requirements of the Framework which is the key issue in this appeal.

Overall, I find that these other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness to which I attach substantial weight. There are no very special circumstances to justify the development. In addition, because of this Green Belt harm, the proposal would conflict with LP Policy QP5 which is consistent with the approach in the Framework and only allows for inappropriate development in the Green Belt where justified by very special circumstances.

The scheme would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made otherwise. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.