Proposed elevational enhancement including roof alterations to raise the ridge and eaves by 1.7 metres thus improving headroom at first floor level and creating an additional bedroom

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 June 2018 by R C Shrimplin MA(Cantab) DipArch RIBA FRTPI FCIArb MCIL an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 June 2018 Appeal Reference: APP/R0335/D/18/3195964 ‘Kings Copse’ Bottle Lane, Warfield, Bracknell, RG42 5RY  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr G King against the decision of Bracknell Forest Borough Council.  The application (reference 17/00902/FUL, dated 14 August 2017) was refused by notice dated 14 December 2017.  The development proposed is described in the application form as a “proposed elevational enhancement including roof alterations to raise the ridge and eaves by 1.7 metres thus improving headroom at first floor level and creating an additional bedroom”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary point 2. Notwithstanding the description of the proposed development given in the planning application form, the appeal proposals can adequately and more succinctly be described as the construction of extensions and alterations. Main issues 3. The first main issue to be determined in this appeal is whether the proposal is “inappropriate development” in terms of Green Belt policies. If so, it is necessary to consider whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm would be clearly outweighed by other considerations; if not, it is nonetheless necessary to consider the impact of the proposed development on the surroundings, including the impact on trees on the site. Reasons 4. Bottle Lane lies in a rural location, to the north of Warfield and Bracknell. It is a country lane, though it is well used, and it is crossed by a bridlepath, Hazelwood Lane, which runs alongside the western boundary of the appeal site. ‘Kings Copse’ is an isolated dwelling, at the junction of the lane and the bridlepath, and is surrounded by agricultural land, though there is some scattered development in the vicinity. Appeal Decision: APP/R0335/D/18/3195964 2 5. ‘Kings Copse’ itself has the appearance of a chalet bungalow, with some accommodation at first floor level. There is evidence to show that it was designed as, essentially, a single storey building when it was first constructed, in about 1997. Since the original construction, however, the building has been altered and extended in various ways. It is built in a traditional form, of white painted brickwork under tiled roofs, with a range of outbuildings creating an entrance courtyard. 6. The main element of the appeal proposals would be the raising of the roof to improve the usefulness of the existing first floor, enlarging existing rooms and creating an additional bathroom. A front porch would also be added. 7. The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ makes it plain, at paragraph 89, that the construction of new buildings is not normally acceptable in the Green Belt (and that they should only be permitted in “very special circumstances”). The extension of an existing building in the Green Belt can be acceptable, “provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building”. 8. More generally, the ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ also emphasises the aim of “requiring good design” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 7) and it points out the importance maintaining the overall quality of the area. 9. Policies in the Development Plan underpin the Green Belt designation, notably Policy CS9 of the ‘Core Strategy Development Plan Document’ and Policy GB1 of the ‘Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan’. Other Development Plan Policies are concerned with design issues more generally, while Policy EN20 of the ‘Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan’, which deals with design considerations, includes a particular reference to the protection of trees. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on design issues is also relevant, though it does not have the same force as Policies in the Development Plan. 10. The proposed extensions and alterations in this case would create a substantial two storey dwelling that would be very much larger than the “original” dwelling for which planning permission was granted. In consequence, the appeal proposals would amount to “inappropriate” development in the Green Belt. 11. Within the Green Belt, development is strictly controlled to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Green Belt policies are long established and well understood and they impose a presumption against “inappropriate development” unless there are “very special circumstances” which justify it in a particular case. 12. In this case, there are no “very special circumstances” that would be sufficient to outweigh the Green Belt presumption against the appeal scheme. The project conflicts with both national and local planning policies and, for policy reasons, it is bound to fail, therefore. 13. Turning to the specific issue of tree protection, there are a number of protected trees within the appeal site and it may be expected that, as they continue to grow, there may be pressure to reduce them, to maintain the balance of light and shade within the garden. Nevertheless, it does not seem likely that the works now proposed would add materially to that pressure, while the footprint of the existing building would be maintained (except for the proposed new front Appeal Decision: APP/R0335/D/18/3195964 3 porch). Hence, the proposed development itself would not have an adverse impact on trees that would justify a refusal of planning permission. 14. The proposed extensions and alterations would make a useful addition to the accommodation at ‘Kings Copse’, meeting family needs, and would produce an attractive finished dwellinghouse, although the project is more than a mere “elevational enhancement”. Nevertheless, the proposed development would conflict with Green Belt policies as set out in both national and local planning policy documents. The benefits of the scheme would not outweigh the harm that it would cause and it follows that it ought not to be allowed. Although I have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, including the impact on trees, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision. Roger C Shrimplin INSPECTOR