# Knightswood Cottage, Prince Albert Drive, Ascot

- **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
- **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, householder-gb, fallback, vsc-not-shown, transitional-no-consultation

## 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
- **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 weight).** 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010236
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1b8558bd-c95b-4c66-a229-3dc6239f36ab

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010236.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.