Appeal 3289732

The appeal is dismissed

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

[site address] is a semi-detached house located in a tapered corner plot within a mid-twentieth century suburban housing development. A feature of [address] is an awareness of separation between dwelling pairs arising from views of greenery at the rear over intervening garages or outbuildings.

Taken together, the relevant policies of the adopted Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 (BBLP), 29 and 30 seek to ensure development is of high quality, recognising the character of, and retaining a positive relationship with, the surrounding area, looking to reinforce or retain local distinctiveness through high quality design. This is supported the adopted guidance [name] and Small Infill Development (RENDSID) which explains the impact of different approaches to the positioning of buildings and extensions and at E3 emphasises the importance of retaining space around buildings.

As the appellant makes clear, the adjacent non-paired dwelling, [address], sits within a similarly tapered plot but has been extended both to the adjacent side and more prominently to the front with a cramping effect due to the angle of the shared boundary. Consequently, although the proposed extension would leave a gap at the boundary other than in a very limited view, this would make little or no contribution to the street scene due to the corner location and the position of the adjacent front extension.

The extensions to No.12 have significantly reduced the original space between the dwellings and, therefore, the perception of separation between dwelling blocks, nevertheless, notwithstanding the corner location and recent extensions, opportunity for such glimpsed views remain over the existing garaging on the appeal site as they do in other parts of the street. From my observations, the effect of the development and the replacement of existing low structures with two-storey development would likely be to remove this important element of the street scene and harm the sense of spaciousness created in the original layout. This would conflict with the policies I have identified as those most important for the determination of this appeal in that the proposal would fail to retain sufficient space around the host building which is an important characteristic of the area.

The appellant has provided street-scene images of the proposal and drawn attention to an appeal decision. Although there are similarities with the appeal site as to the type and disposition of the buildings at 14 Langdale, these are not determinative as I have reached my conclusion on the facts before me. These include my observations of the effect of the proposal from differing viewpoints including important approach views and having regard to the specific configuration of built form at the appeal site.

I have also considered that the proposal would provide additional living accommodation but this does not change my overall conclusion that, taking all matters raised into account, the proposal would not accord with the development plan taken as a whole and therefore that the appeal must fail.