Double storey rear extension loft conversion and internal alterations (enlarged dormers and increase in height of the portico) 17/02072/FULL & 17/03368/FULL

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 October 2019 by Jonathan Edwards BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 08 November 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/T0355/D/19/3234893 18 Waylands, Wraysbury, Staines TW19 5DZ • 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 Manjit Jaswal against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. • The application Ref 19/01427, dated 23 May 2019, was refused by notice dated 12 July 2019. • The development proposed is a double storey rear extension loft conversion and internal alterations (enlarged dormers and increase in height of the portico) 17/02072/FULL & 17/03368/FULL. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. On my site visit I saw that the appeal development has been completed, apparently in accordance with the submitted plans. 3. The Council’s decision notice makes reference to the Borough Local Plan 2013–2033 Submission Version (LPSV). However, the LPSV does not currently form part of the development plan and its policies carry limited weight. Main Issues 4. The appeal site is located within the Green Belt and so the main issues are: • whether the appeal scheme represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and development plan policy; and • the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and • the effect on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area; and • if the development would be inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it. Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/19/3234893 2 Reasons 5. The appeal property benefits from planning permission that allow extensions to the front and rear1 (hereafter referred to as ‘the approved development’). As this is a recent permission, there is a greater than a theoretical possibility the approved development would be constructed regardless as to my decision. Whether inappropriate development in the Green Belt 6. Policy GB1 of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan 1999 (incorporating Alterations Adopted June 2003) (LP) states that in the Green Belt, approval will only be granted for certain types of development, unless very special circumstances exist. LP policy GB4 states that the extension of a dwelling in the Green Belt will only be approved where it would not cause a disproportionate addition to the size of the original dwelling. 7. These policies are broadly consistent with paragraph 145 of the Framework which states that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. However, the extension or alteration of a building would not be inappropriate development, provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 8. There is no definition of ‘disproportionate’ in either the Framework or the development plan. Whilst mentioned by both main parties, LP policy GB4 does not include a 50% floor space increase limit but refers to a range of factors to have regard to in determining whether a development complies with the policy. 9. The appeal property was granted planning permission in 1997. The Council state the original building measured some 154 square metres in floorspace. This figure is not disputed by the appellant and is corroborated by details on submitted plans relating to the approved development. The Council has calculated that the appeal scheme results in an extra 86 square metres of floorspace over the size of the original dwelling, representing an approximate 56% addition. 10. The extensions have added significant volume to the house at ground, first floor and roof level. Having regard to the overall size of the extensions, including their scale, bulk and the amount of additional floorspace created, I consider the development represents disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling. As such, I consider the appeal scheme represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Openness 11. The Framework at paragraph 133 states that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. LP policy GB2 states that permission will not be granted for new development that would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Openness has spatial and visual aspects that is not merely considering floorspace and volume. The development increases the size of the appeal property in a manner that spatially and visually reduces the openness of the site. Whilst in isolation the increase in size is small compared to the pre-development situation, there is still a loss of openness that causes harm to the Green Belt. 1 Council of Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead planning permission reference number 17/03368 Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/19/3234893 3 Character and appearance 12. The appeal property is a 2 storey pitched roof house in a residential cul-de-sac. There are views from the back garden of an adjoining lake. 13. Whilst most of the rear extension is similar to that permitted as part of the approved development, the 2 rear dormers are markedly different in scale and appearance, projecting out further from the roof plane, coming closer to the eaves and partially finished with hung tiles. By virtue of their size and appearance the dormers appear bulky and dominate the rear elevation. Despite being below the ridgeline and away from the sides of the roof, the dormers nonetheless have resulted in the rear of the property having an uncharacteristic and unattractive top-heavy appearance. 14. The rear extension is not seen from the cul-de-sac but is visible to a degree from neighbouring properties as well as from the adjoining lake. I note similar dormers on the rear of 16 Waylands, however the existence of development elsewhere does not represent an appropriate reason to find in favour of a proposal that would cause harm. 15. The ridgeline and eaves of the front extension subject of this appeal are set below the main house roof, thereby avoiding an unduly prominent appearance. Also, the front extension is similar to that already permitted. As such, this element of the scheme causes no harm to the character and appearance of the house or the area. However, this does not outweigh the overly dominant appearance of the rear dormers. 16. Policy DG1 of the LP requires the design of new buildings to be compatible with the established street façade and I find the front extension to be acceptable in this regard. However, for the reasons outlined above I conclude that the rear dormers cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the host building and thereby the surrounding area. Consequently, and in this regard, the appeal development is contrary to policy H14 of the LP and the Framework which aim, amongst other things, to ensure that house extensions have no adverse effect on the character or appearance of the original property and to avoid harm to the character and appearance of an area. Other considerations 17. Although I acknowledge the approved development, the appeal scheme is more harmful to the openness of the Green Belt due to the increase in size of the rear dormers and extension to the front. Also, the appeal scheme offers no benefits over and above those associated with the approved development. As such, whilst the approved development is a material consideration, I give it limited weight in support of the appeal. 18. Furthermore, by being set off the common boundaries, the extensions avoid harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and adequate parking facilities are provided to serve the development. However, these are neutral factors in my assessment of the appeal that do not weigh in favour of the scheme. Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/19/3234893 4 Green Belt balance 19. I have identified that the appeal scheme represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The Framework indicates at paragraph 143 that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Such circumstances only exist where the harm by reason of any inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In carrying out this balancing exercise, substantial weight is to be given to any harm caused to the Green Belt. 20. In support of the scheme, I attach limited weight to the permission granted for the approved development. Against this, as well as harm by reason of inappropriateness, the appeal scheme causes a loss of openness of the Green Belt when compared to the approved development. Also, the rear dormers harm the character and appearance of the host building and the area, to which I attach moderate weight. 21. I conclude that the factors in support of the proposal and all other relevant considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm the development causes to the Green Belt and the other harm that I have identified. Consequently, very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. As such, the development conflicts with policies GB1, GB2 and GB4 of the LP and the Framework which, amongst other things, seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development. Conclusion 22. For the reasons given above, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed. Jonathan Edwards INSPECTOR