- Decision
- dismissed, 22 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: J Bell-Williamson
- Authority
- Bracknell Forest (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6010236
- Application reference
- 25/00773/FUL
- Procedure
- householder
- Development
- Single-storey infill extension with roof lantern, rooflights, front dormer to house and side dormer to garage
- Site context
- green belt
- Green Belt
- Yes
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(b), GB6(2)
- Development plan policies
- Bracknell Forest Local Plan 2020-2037 (2024) LP 34
- Main issues
- inappropriate development; openness; VSC
Summary
A small further extension to an already much-extended semi-detached house in the Green Belt at Ascot. The appeal was dismissed. Cumulatively it would take the house to about 145% over its original volume, which is disproportionate under GB7(1)(b), even though the new element is small and enclosed.
Issues and findings
- GB7(1)(b): FAIL. "Neither Policy LP 34 … nor Policy GB7 … set a numerical ceiling on additions. However, when viewed cumulatively alongside the existing extensions, due to the increase in volume, the appeal scheme would result in a disproportionate increase" (DL ¶8).
- Openness. Limited spatial harm. It "would not sprawl onto undeveloped land, which would limit any harm to visual openness" (DL ¶10-11).
- Fallback. A replacement dwelling was "no greater than a theoretical possibility", so limited weight (DL ¶13).
Planning balance
GB6(2). Moderate weight went to better living space, since "it has not been demonstrated that this could not be achieved by a less harmful scheme" (DL ¶12), and limited weight to the fallback. Together they did not clearly outweigh (DL ¶16).
What made the difference
Earlier extensions had used up the allowance. The test is cumulative against the original building, so even a small, visually contained addition fails.
Transferable points
- The GB7(1)(b) test is cumulative against the original building. A small addition to a heavily extended house is still disproportionate (DL ¶7-8).
- A replacement-dwelling fallback for a semi-detached house is theoretical without evidence it is being pursued (DL ¶13).
- The absence of other harms is neutral in the VSC balance (DL ¶14).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB7(1)(b) | fail | original 361 m³, existing 793 m³, proposed 888 m³ → c.145% cumulative increase vs LP guide of 40% → disproportionate (DL 5-8) | |
| GB6(2) | harm | substantial | limited spatial harm; largely enclosed by existing building so limited visual harm (DL 9-11, 16) |
Key facts
- A semi-detached house already extended to more than double its original volume before this proposal
- [object Object]
- Absence of other harms treated as neutral (DL 14)
- No consultation on the 2026 Framework, because the approach "has not fundamentally changed" (DL 2)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.