RBWM loses appeal on bid for work on listed 19th century house

Windsor and Maidenhead council has lost an appeal to prevent alterations to a Grade II listed building on the greenbelt in Horton.

Brookfield Lodge is a small 19th Century semi-detached cottage on Datchet Road.

It adjoins a Grade II-listed Georgian country house via a link building. This main building, called Brookfield House, is set in 1.4 hectares of private grounds.

There is a detached ‘summer room’ located to the front of Brookfield Lodge and the proposal was to link the Lodge to it.

The applicant argued that the Royal Borough’s own space and quality of living standards decreed that the alterations be allowed – yet, the council still refused.

This was not the first time there has been a battle for changes to this house – in July 2022 a similar application lost at appeal against the council.

It was deemed that it would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The new proposal was redesigned with a reduced footprint and materials to match, ‘such that it would not appear incongruous with the existing summer room.’

Applicant Daljit Bhail argued that there was a ‘genuine need’ for modern living space.

After being derelict for a long time, Brookfield Lodge was converted from an annexe of the main House into its own cottage and granted listed building consent in 1997.

At that time, the building met the minimum standards set for a two-bedroom home. But now, it ‘does not accord with the RBWM standards of accommodation,’ argued Mr Bhail.

“If planning permission were sought today for the conversion of the property to a 2-bedroom property it would be refused,” he wrote.

"It is grossly unrealistic to expect occupiers/tenants to pay additional sums which inevitably arise from the maintenance and repair of heritage assets whilst having to live in substandard accommodation,” he wrote.

But this didn’t fly with the Royal Borough. Its officers countered that ‘"the RBWM standards” referred to … apply to new dwellings and are therefore not relevant.’

Officers further felt that the new proposal would result in the loss of visual separation between the older building and new development. The Council’s Conservation Officer said:

“The building has been enlarged twice before... and as such the significance of the building has already diminished.

“To permit further enlargement and alteration would further erode this significance and reduce the prominence of the listed lodge.”

But in the appeal decision last month, planning inspector A Tucker disagreed, overturning the Borough’s decision – and saying, effectively, the damage has been done.

“Given the extent of alteration [already] and its lack of architectural quality, the special interest of this part of the listed building is limited,” A Tucker wrote.

“In summary, the proposal would not harm the significance of the listed building.”

But Mr Bhail’s application for costs against the Royal Borough was turned down.

Costs may be awarded against a party who has ‘behaved unreasonably’ and caused unnecessary or wasted expense to the other party during the appeal process.

“I note that some incorrect information was provided by the council during the appeal process,” A Tucker wrote.

“Whilst frustrating to the applicant, these were minor matters that were unrelated to the main matters of dispute between the parties.

“I am satisfied that unnecessary or wasted expense did not occur in relation to this matter.”