Erection of a first floor side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 September 2018 by S. J. Buckingham, BA (Hons) DipTP MSc MRTPI FSA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12th October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/R0335/D/18/3203386 Kingsacre, North Street, Winkfield, Windsor, SL4 4TE  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 Daren Chessun against the decision of Bracknell Forest Council.  The application Ref: 18/00057/FUL dated 10 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 14 March 2018.  The development proposed is erection of a first floor side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a first floor side extension at Kingsacre, North Street, Winkfield, Windsor SL4 4TE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/00057/FUL, dated 10 January 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1:1250 red line plan; 1:500 block plan; Existing and proposed floorplans (Sheet 1 of 3); Existing elevations (Sheet 2 of 3); and Proposed elevations (Sheet 3 of 3). 3) The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in materials which match in appearance those of the existing dwelling. Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr Daren Chessun against Bracknell Forest Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Preliminary Matters 3. The description of development was changed by the Council from that given in original application, but this was without the agreement of the appellant. I have therefore I have followed the original description in this Decision. 4. The revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 24 July 2018 and is a material consideration in the determination of this appeal which needs to be taken into account from the day of its publication. However, the starting point for decision making remains the Appeal Decision APP/R03335/D/18/3203386 2 development plan, and the Framework is clear at paragraph 213 that existing development plan policies should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted or made prior to this date. 5. The views of the parties on the bearing the new Framework will have on this case have been sought, and I have had regard to those submitted and to the revised Framework in reaching a decision. Main Issues 6. As the site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt, the main issues are:  whether the development would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt;  the effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it; and  if the development would be inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances needed to justify it. Reasons Whether the development is inappropriate within the Green Belt 7. The appeal building is a two storey, detached dwelling in a neo-Georgian style with a flat-roofed side projection containing the kitchen and utility room. It has a detached, flat-roofed garage set a short distance from the flank of the projection and separated from it by a walkway with a profiled polycarbonate roof. The garage and house have been extended historically, the garage with small store rooms to the rear and the house with a conservatory erected under permitted development rights. The appeal proposal is for the erection of a first floor side extension above the garage and existing projection, and spanning the walkway. 8. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear at paragraph 145 that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate within the Green Belt. However, the exceptions listed in this paragraph include 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. The glossary to the Framework defines an original building as being a building as it existed in July 1948, or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally. 9. Policy GB1 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan 2002 (the LP) reflects the exceptions to inappropriate development set out in paragraph 145 of the Framework. For the purpose of policy GB1 an extension will be considered 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. 10. The existing garage relates clearly in design and construction to the house, is linked to it by a wall containing a gateway, and there is no dispute between the parties that it was built concurrently with house as part of the original development in 1963. Appeal Decision APP/R03335/D/18/3203386 3 11. The judgement in Sevenoaks DC v Secretary of State for the Environment and Dawe1 identified that outbuildings, as normal domestic adjuncts to a dwelling, while physically separated from the main house are capable of being considered part of the dwelling. In the light of this judgement, to which I attach significant weight, and of the proximity of the garage to the main house and its construction concurrently with the house, I conclude that it can be considered as part of the original dwelling. 12. Conflicting figures have been put before me in relation to the increase in floor area. Those provided by the appellant indicate an increase of 35.3%. On the basis of the figures put before me by the Council the floor area of the original building would, if the garage were included, come to a total of 295.96 m2 (255.6 m2 + 40.36 m2 = 295.96 m2). The floor area of the extended building, taking into account previous extensions to the house and garage, would come to a total of 413.61 m2. Using these figures, the increase in floor area would therefore be 39.75%. Thus, whichever figures are followed, the increase would be within the limits of policy GB1 of the LP. 13. Consequently, I conclude that the increase would not be disproportionate, and that the development would not be inappropriate within the Green Belt. 14. I have had regard to the Tandridge decision put before me by the Council2. As the garage would have been a closely related ancillary structure to the dwelling at the time of its construction it would not have been an additional original building on site, and in any case this would not necessarily change the calculations in relation to the increase in floorspace. It does not therefore cause me to alter my conclusions on this development. I have also had regard to the appeal decision put before me by the Council3, but have determined this appeal on its own merits. 15. As the extension would be of a domestic scale and design, and set in an area of large detached houses, it would not conflict with the requirements of GB1 in relation to character and appearance, not with those of policy EN8 of the LP, which also seek to protect character and appearance. It would not conflict with the sustainability requirements of policies CS1 and CS2 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (CS), nor with the exercise of strict control of development within the Green Belt in line with national guidance set out in policy CS9 of the CS. The Effect on Openness 16. As development would be not-inappropriate within the Green Belt, it should not, the Court of Appeal has confirmed, be regarded as harmful either to the openness of the Green Belt or to the purposes of including land in the Green Belt4. It is not therefore necessary for me to consider this matter in any further detail. 1 [1997] EWHC Admin 1012 2 Tandridge District Council v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 2503 (Admin) 3 Ref: APP/R/335/A/09/2104272 4 Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, R (on the application of) v Epping Forest District Council and Anor (Rev 1) [2016] EWCA Civ 404. Appeal Decision APP/R03335/D/18/3203386 4 Very Special Circumstances 17. As the development would not be inappropriate within the Green Belt, it is not necessary to identify very special circumstances which might outweigh the harm caused in inappropriateness. Conditions 18. The Council has provided a list of suggested conditions, on which the appellant has had an opportunity to comment. I have considered them in the light of paragraph 55 of the Framework. In the interests of clarity, a condition is attached requiring the implementation of the development in accordance with the approved plans. A condition is also attached relating to the external materials to be used, in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area. 19. Paragraph 53 of the Framework is clear that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is a clear justification for doing so. Planning Practice Guidance advises that conditions restricting the future use of permitted development rights will rarely pass the test of necessity, and should only be used in exceptional circumstances5. Although the site is within the Green Belt, no clear justification in the light of any exceptional circumstances has been put before me, and I have identified none. I have not, therefore, applied such a condition. Conclusion 20. For the reasons given above, therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. S J Buckingham INSPECTOR 5 Paragraph: 017 Reference ID: 21a-017-20140306