Appeal 6006650

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a timber framed garage to replace derelict outbuildings at [site address] , [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application ref: 25/00779/FUL and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall accord with the following approved plans: location plan (scale 1:1250), block plan (scale 1:500), and elevations and site plan (scale 1:100).

At the time of my site visit I saw that the garage has already been built and I have treated the scheme on that basis.

The main issues are: • whether or not the garage building is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies, and • The effect of the development on highway safety

The appeal site lies in a rural location on the edge of the village of [site address] within the Green Belt. It comprises a semi-detached cottage of rendered elevations under a pitched slate roof set back behind a tall hedge. It has been previously extended to the side and rear with single and two storey additions. There is a vehicular access to the front leading to a gravel parking area to the front of the cottage. To the side and located to front of the cottage is the timber framed garage the subject of this appeal.

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 LP34 of the Bracknell Forest Local Plan (2024) (LP) states that an extension that cumulatively results in an increase in volume of the original building of more than 40% is very likely to be regarded as disproportionate. LP Policy LP34 and the Framework clarify that the original building is that which existed in 1948.

Various extensions have been permitted since 1975 which have added 63% to the floor area and more than doubled the volume of the original dwelling. The current proposal would add a further 24% floorspace and 29% volume. The appellant provides different figures, suggesting that the increase in volume over the size of dwelling that existed in 2011 is 46%. However, as indicated above, the baseline for comparison is the original building as existed in 1948.

Having regard to relevant case law1, and given its use as a domestic adjunct, as it is sited very close to the dwelling, the garage can be considered to be an extension to it. Having regard to LP Policy LP34, given the extensions that have already taken place, this additional ‘extension’ would amount to a disproportionate addition to the size of the original dwelling. It would thus not satisfy Framework paragraph 154(c).

The appellant contends that the garage replaced previously existing derelict buildings. However, the photographic evidence provided shows only a small lean-to store building of a height well below that of the boundary hedge and considerably smaller than the garage that now exists, and therefore, does not provide a convincing justification for the new building including in terms of a potential fall-back position.

The appellant suggests that alternatively, the proposal should be considered as ‘limited infilling in villages’ in accordance with Framework paragraph 154(e). In this regard, the appellant refers to an appeal decision where the Inspector found that extensions to a dwelling amounted to limited infilling within a village2. The Framework does not define ‘limited infilling’ nor indicate any other limitations. LP Policy LP34 and Policy W1 of the Winkfield Parish Neighbourhood Plan (NP) also allow for limited infilling within the defined villages. NP Policy W1 goes on to state that infill development should be appropriate to the scale of the locality and not have an adverse impact on the character of the countryside or openness of the Green Belt.

The appeal site lies within the ‘Green Belt Village’ boundary as identified on the LP policies map and the area is referred to in part 2.v of LP Policy LP34 as [site address] / [address]. The wider village contains a pub, church and village hall as well as a garden centre. The supporting text at 9.97 states that limited infilling is considered to be the development of a small gap in an otherwise continuous built-up frontage, or the small-scale redevelopment of existing properties within such a frontage.

The appeal site can therefore be concluded to not only lie within the defined village but also within a group of dwellings that comprises a continuous built-up frontage 1 WarwickDC v SSLUH, [name] & [name] [2022]’DWHC 2145 (Admin) 2 APP/W4223/W/19/3227776 on the northern side of the road. Whilst typically ‘infilling’ often relates to the provision of new housing, I see no reason why it should not apply to outbuildings. The garage is sited within the small gap between the dwelling on the appeal site and the property to the west, albeit closer to the dwelling on the appeal site and to the front of it. Having regard to its size and location, I find that it does comprise ‘limited infilling’ in the village and thus satisfies Framework paragraph 154(e). It thus also complies with LP Policy LP34 and NP Policy W1. It is therefore not inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

[name] have found that the proposal would not be inappropriate development, it is not necessary for very special circumstances to be demonstrated. Furthermore, it is not necessary to consider the impact on Green Belt openness. Whilst NP Policy W1 does include further criteria, including impact on openness, these do not appear to be consistent with paragraph 154(e) the Framework in this regard which only requires that the development comprises limited infilling, therefore only little weight can be given to those elements of the policy.

The siting of the garage has resulted in the loss of part of the parking area that previously existed to the front of the property. The Council contends that the garage is of insufficient size to provide a parking space and does not satisfy the necessary internal dimensions set by the [name] (2016) (SPD). However, at the time of my site visit there was a [name] parked within the garage. In any event, the Council confirms that the required parking standard is for two spaces, which can be provided on the driveway to the front of the cottage.

The Council also argues that the siting of the garage has resulted in the loss of part of the turning space to the front of the property and given that the appeal site is accessed from an A class road, it is necessary for cars to be able to turn within the site to enter and leave in forward gear.

However, the appellant contends that the space within the site for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles remains essentially unchanged and that the dwelling has operated for approximately 20 years with vehicles reversing onto the driveway as there was limited space for turning. Whilst the submitted photos show that the area in which the garage has been sited was previously used for parking, the depth of the area to the front of the dwelling has not changed and it would have been difficult for cars to turn within that area. I therefore give substantial weight to the appellant’s arguments about the previous situation and the manoeuvring that was required to take place prior to the erection of the garage.

The Council has not referred to any previously approved parking and turning arrangement secured by condition which required a turning area to be retained on the site. Whilst the entrance to the site is located at a slight bend in the road with somewhat limited visibility, this is no different to the previously existing arrangement. As such, no additional highway danger has been introduced as a result of the development. In coming to this judgement, I have carefully considered the views of the County Highway Authority. The development therefore complies with [name] LP25 and LP62 which seek to prevent, minimise and mitigate negative impacts on the transport network and road safety and amongst other things, provide appropriate levels of parking and not cause unacceptable impact on highway safety.

A number of concerns have been raised by the Parish Council and a local resident many of which are addressed above. The appellant’s statement which accompanied the appeal refers to paragraph 154(e) of the Framework which relates to infill development as well as paragraph 154(c) which relates to extensions to buildings. I have considered both of these and the relevant case law which does indicate that detached outbuildings can be considered as an extension to an existing building in certain circumstances. The development does not fall to be considered under paragraph 154(b).

In respect of enforcement and lawfulness matters, these are not before me and I have determined the appeal on its planning merits. [name] agree that the garage is visible in some street scene views, given the screening effect of the boundary vegetation and overall size of the building I would not describe it as prominent.

As the development has already taken place, the standard time condition is unnecessary. However, a condition to ensure the scheme relates to the approved plans is necessary in the interests of clarity and proper planning.

The garage building complies with the development plan when considered as a whole and material considerations do not indicate a decision should be made otherwise. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.