Appeal 3270411

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The Government published on 20 July 2021 a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework. [name] have had regard to the revised national policy as a material consideration in my decision-making, planning decisions must still be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the issues most relevant to the appeal remain unaffected by the revisions to the Framework. I am therefore satisfied that there is no requirement to seek further submissions on the revised Framework, and that no party would be disadvantaged by such a course of action.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the local area.

The appeal site comprises a detached two-storey modern dwelling, built in a distinctive style with mock-Tudor panelling, exposed timber and a [name] roof. The property has an existing rear conservatory, single-storey side extension and a detached double garage to the front. The site is located in a cul-de-sac on [address]. The dwellings in the street are all similar in appearance and many have detached garages to the front. The garages are of a distinctive design with [name] roofs, to match the profile of the associated houses.

The estate has a carefully planned feel with dwellings set back from the street with open front gardens and grass verges running up to the edge of the carriageway. Those open front gardens, in addition to the centrally located public green space gives an open and spacious feel to the area. I recognise that the location of the garages throughout the estate provides a sense of enclosure immediately to the front of each dwelling. However, notwithstanding that, the wider estate retains a low-density character and the gardens and open spaces make a positive contribution in that respect, including the open space to the side of the existing garage which is clearly visible at the head of the cul-de-sac. I recognise that the space may not have been a deliberately planned part of the original scheme for the development but that does not diminish its contribution. Overall, the street has a cohesive appearance and rhythm which makes a significant contribution to the character of the area.

The proposal would see the existing garage roughly doubled in width, with the existing element converted into a utility room and gym and the extended section housing a new double garage and first floor habitable accommodation. The existing garages in the street are all single-storey double garages and therefore, due to its considerable width, height and massing, the proposed garage building would fail to reflect or complement the existing character of the street. The garage would be noticeably taller and more prominent than the adjacent garage which serves the neighbouring property. The elongated profile would be out of kilter with the carefully planned scale and pattern of garages within the estate which are of a consistent square footprint and the ‘stepped’ roof profile would contrast awkwardly against the symmetrical and distinctive [name] of the original garage.

In addition, the proposal would cause a significant reduction in the gap between the garage and the neighbouring garage which would result in an almost continuous built frontage between the dwelling at the appeal site and the neighbouring property. When combined with the significant scale of the extended garage that would reduce the sense of openness and result in an uncharacteristically cramped form of development when compared to the wider estate.

The proposed rear extension, alterations to the conservatory and infill lobby between the garage and main house would all be constructed in materials to match the existing dwelling and, in the case of the rear extension and conservatory, would not be visible from the street. I note that the Council has raised no objections to these elements of the proposal and from all I have seen and read I conclude that these elements would not detract from the character or appearance of the area.

Nevertheless, as the proposed extension to the garage would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area, the proposal would be contrary to policies 28, 29 and 30 of the Bedford Borough Local Plan (January

(LP), and policies DH1 and DH2 of the Oakley Neighbourhood Plan (March 2020) (NP). These policies all seek, amongst other things, to ensure 2 that development complements the character of the area, including with regards to scale, massing and height.

I understand appellant’s desire to provide additional and enhanced habitable space and car parking space for their home. These private benefits of the proposal carry limited weight in favour of the scheme but do not outweigh the harm that has been identified.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis, I agree with the recommendation and shall dismiss the appeal.