Appeal 3276314

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey side and single storey rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/00449/FUL, dated 15 February 2021, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Existing and [name] & Elevations: A988-1a.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Bedford Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed two-storey side extension on the character and appearance of the streetscene.

No. [site address] (No.203) is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling on the southern side of [address]. The dwelling has red facing brickwork with a pitched roof and facing gable, set a reasonable distance from the common boundary with its non-adjoined neighbour at No.[address] (No.201).

The southern side of [address] is characterised by pairs of semi-detached dwellings and short rows of terraced dwellings set within reasonably spacious surroundings. In particular, the semi-detached dwellings are well, and regularly, spaced with outbuildings, trees and dwellings to the rear visible between the pairs.

[name] E3 of the Council’s adopted [name], [name] and [name] Guidance (2000) (SDG) states that ‘in tightly developed areas with minimal gaps between the side of houses, two-storey extensions should be at least 1.5m away from any side boundary.’ The proposed two-storey extension is set back from the main elevation and down from the ridge of the existing roof of No.203 and at ground floor extends right up to the common boundary at No.201. At first floor, to allow for a reasonably sized WC and fourth bedroom, it extends to about 1m from the side boundary. I acknowledge therefore that the proposal fails to meet [name] E3 of the SDG.

However, the neighbouring dwelling at No.201 is itself set well off the common boundary and has a hipped roof that slopes away from No.203. This in combination with the design of the extension, set down from the ridge of the existing roof, means that the spaciousness between the dwellings would be largely retained. There would be a clear visual break between the two dwellings with glimpses of the trees to the rear remaining. The proposed two-storey side extension would not therefore reduce the visual gap, nor would it result in No.203 and No.[address], such that it would cause harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene.

Consequently, although there would be a conflict with part of the SDG, the proposal would comply with Policies 28,29 and 30 of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 (January 2020). These policies all seek, amongst other things, development of a high-quality design that integrates well and respects local distinctiveness and context. It would further be consistent with the guidance in the Framework that developments should be of good design, sympathetic to local character.

The standard time limit and a condition specifying the approved plans are required to provide certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, a condition is also necessary requiring external materials used in the construction of the proposed extension to match the existing dwelling.

For the reasons give above, I conclude the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions above.