Appeal 6004321

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for part single-storey/part two-storey, side/rear extension and alterations to fenestration at [site address] , [site address] , Maidenhead, Windsor and Maidenhead [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02586/FULL, 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 drawing numbers 0254-GA-0002 P02, 0254-GA-0003 P02, 0254-GA-0010 P01, 0254-GA-0011 P01, and 0254-GA-0012 P01;

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling; and

No development shall take place above slab level until the details and locations of biodiversity enhancements, to include but not be limited to one bat or bird box installed integral to the building or on a mature tree, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority by way of relevant plans and elevations. The biodiversity enhancements shall be installed prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted and retained as such thereafter.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

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

The appeal site falls within land defined as Green Belt. The Framework establishes that development within the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate unless one of the specified exceptions applies. Policy QP5 of the Borough Local Plan 2013-2033 (2022) (the LP) is consistent in its overall approach with the Green Belt aims of the Framework. It is not disputed that the appeal site is previously developed land, and I find no reason to come to an alternate view. The exception at Framework Paragraph154 g) allows for limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential or mixed use including residential), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

There is no definition of partial redevelopment specified within the Framework or LP Policy QP5. Notwithstanding the scale and location of the proposal it would involve the demolition of the conservatory and new additions to the dwelling. Taken together, this would reasonably result in the partial redevelopment of the site. As a result, and in the absence of any pertinent evidence to suggest otherwise, the proposal falls within the scope of partial redevelopment of previously developed land for the purposes of the exception at Framework 154 g). The issue therefore turns on whether any harm to the openness of the Green Belt arising from the proposed development would be “substantial.”

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt that is commonly taken to have both spatial and visual aspects. The proposal would introduce a three-dimensional form onto areas currently occupied by hardstanding, alongside the vertical extension of existing single‐storey elements. This would increase both the overall footprint and volume of the dwelling, resulting in more built form than currently exists at the site. In particular, the first-floor extensions would add bulk and massing eroding the sense of openness by extending built form upwards and outwards. Consequently, the proposal would have a greater physical presence within the Green Belt, reducing spatial openness.

The appeal site, and the location of the proposal, is generally well enclosed by established vegetation and surrounding built form. Nevertheless, the proposal would be perceptible from the public realm, largely confined to short‐range, perpendicular views from [site address] . The overall increased bulk of built form would therefore be visible from these vantage points, and the proposal would inevitably lead to a loss of openness in a visual sense.

Considering the modest scale of the proposal in relation to the existing dwelling, overall, the loss of openness would be localised, mitigated by the limited degree of public visibility, resulting in limited harm to openness.

As such, I conclude that the proposal would be the partial redevelopment of previously developed land which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. It would consequently comply with the exception set out in Framework paragraph 154 g) and would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. A case for special circumstances is not therefore required and it is not necessary to consider the other exceptions. There would be no conflict with Policy QP5 of the LP or the Green Belt aims of the Framework.

The appeal site is located within the setting of The Church of [name] the Less (the Church), a Grade II Listed Building. I am required by Section 66(1) of the Planning (Conservation Areas and [name]) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses. Pertinent to this appeal, the Church’s special interest and significance is derived from its architectural, historic and community value. Given the location, extent and nature of the proposal in relation to the listed building, its setting would be preserved and the contribution it makes to the asset’s significance would not be harmed. I note the Council raised no concerns in this respect either.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I recommend a condition is imposed requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty. In the interests of protecting character and appearance I recommend a condition securing matching materials. It is also recommended that in the interest of enhancing biodiversity, that a condition is imposed requiring the development to include the installation of a bird or bat box.

The Framework states that permitted development rights should not be restricted unless there is clear justification to do so, and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) includes conditions on the extent of development permitted by Class A including that any upper windows located in a wall or roof slope forming the side elevation shall be obscure glazed to provide privacy. That being the case, there is no clear justification for restricting the exercise of permitted development rights by existing or future occupiers, should they choose to do so. I recommend that it is therefore not necessary to impose a condition restricting the addition of west facing windows in the side elevation at first floor.

For the reasons given above, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.