Case 3328021

10 Redvers Road, Bracknell Forest, BRACKNELL, RG12 7JS

Bracknell Forest Borough Council — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
13 February 2024
Authority
Bracknell Forest Borough Council
Inspector
Praine N
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Minor Dwellings
Appellant
Mr Kurt Turner
LPA reference
23/00229/FUL
ONS LPA code
E06000036
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
20 November 2023

Summary AI

The appeal was dismissed due to the proposed development's impact on the character and appearance of the area, despite the appellant's argument that the property had not been extended in the past.

Generated from the decision letter — check against the original before relying on it.

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Appeal Decision

10 Redvers Road, Bracknell Forest, BRACKNELL, RG12 7JS — Bracknell Forest Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 January 2024 by N Praine BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:13.02.2024 Appeal Ref: APP/R0335/W/23/3328021 10 Redvers Road, Bracknell RG12 7JS • 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 K Turner against the decision of Bracknell Forest Council. • The application Ref 23/00229/FUL, dated 4 April 2023, was refused by notice dated 20 June 2023. • The development proposed is described as a single storey extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises an end terrace dwelling which sits at a prominent corner where Redvers Road and South Lynn Crescent meet. There is a generous area of predominantly grassed amenity land between the appeal dwelling and South Lynn Crescent and this open land makes a valuable contribution to the character and appearance of the area. 4. The proposed extension would project significantly in both width and depth from the host dwelling.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Appeal Decision

10 Redvers Road, Bracknell Forest, BRACKNELL, RG12 7JS — Bracknell Forest Borough Council — Appeal Decision The appellant also points out that the appeal property has not been extended in the past. 5. However, when compared to the dimensions of the host dwelling, the proposed development would nevertheless appear unsympathetically disproportionate in size given its significant proportions when compared to the host dwelling. 6. This harm would be further compounded as the proposed development’s projection toward South Lynn Crescent would also disrupt the building line and existing pattern of development along this frontage. 7. While amenity land would be lost, a considerable area of green open land would be retained between the proposed development and South Lynn Crescent. Nonetheless, the in-combination effect of the dimensions of the proposed extension, as set out above, and the erosion of amenity land would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. 8. The significance of the Easthampstead Conservation Area (“CA”) is derived in part for its social importance as an example of a modern planned new town. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 2 Appeal Decision

10 Redvers Road, Bracknell Forest, BRACKNELL, RG12 7JS — Bracknell Forest Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/R0335/W/23/3328021 The Council’s Conservation Officer states that the CA’s significance is not dependant on its architectural interest and detailing. 9. The Council and its Conservation Officer did not object to the proposed development on the basis of any harm to the CA and given there is no evidence to suggest the social importance of the CA would be harmed, I am inclined to agree. 10. However, while there would be no harm in this regard, this does not extinguish the need for development proposals to comply with the development plan as a whole. Accordingly for the reasons as set out above, the proposed development is unacceptable and would not sympathetically respond to the existing character and appearance of the area. 11. The proposals would therefore fail to comply with the relevant provisions of Policy EN20 and Policy H12 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan (2002) and Policy CS7 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Council Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2008). These, amongst other things, require development proposals to contribute positively to the appearance of the public realm. Other Matters 12.

Page 2 · Chunk 3 Appeal Decision

10 Redvers Road, Bracknell Forest, BRACKNELL, RG12 7JS — Bracknell Forest Borough Council — Appeal Decision I have considered the matters raised in support of the appeal proposals, including the provision of extra parking and absence of neighbour objections. However, any benefits arising would be modest and would not outweigh the identified harm to the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 13. The proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 N Praine

10 Redvers Road, Bracknell Forest, BRACKNELL, RG12 7JS — Bracknell Forest Borough Council — N Praine INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Character and appearance
Against appellant
¶3

The appeal site sits at a prominent corner and the proposed extension would disrupt the building line and existing pattern of development.

Character and appearance
Against appellant
¶7

The in-combination effect of the dimensions of the proposed extension and the erosion of amenity land would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Other
Neutral
¶9

The Council and Conservation Officer did not object to the proposed development on the basis of harm to the Conservation Area, but this does not extinguish the need for development proposals to comply with the development plan as a whole.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
Policy EN20
Determinative
Policy H12
Determinative
Policy CS7
Determinative

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 13 February 2024 under the Open Government Licence.