Appeal 3303766

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect on the character and appearance of the area; and the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residents with regard to outlook.

The proposal is for a large garage with accommodation above in the rear garden of this property. It would be a substantial building and its eastern elevation would have the appearance of a dwelling rather than a garage. However, it would have limited wider prominence and its domestic appearance would not be out of keeping in this residential area. I do not find conflict with the design requirements of Policy 28S or Policy 30 of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 (LP). I also do not find conflict with LP Policy 32 which relates to disturbance and pollution impacts.

The new building would replace an existing large garage but would extend the footprint closer to the boundary with [address]. Given the proposed use however, there is no objection to the principle of a replacement building. The proposal would however be significantly higher and would be situated close to both the side and rear boundaries.

With regard to [address], the proposal would be screened, to a large extent, from the rear facing rooms of that property by the buildings within that garden. Being to the south, it would not significantly reduce sunlight to the rooms of the house as the sun would be at its highest point at this time. It www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision: APP/K0235/D/22/3303766 would however create shade within the rear part of the garden of the neighbouring property during the mornings and it would represent a dominating structure given its considerable height and position close to the side boundary. The neighbouring residents have their main outdoor seating area close to the rear of their house and the proposal would have only a limited impact on this particular area. However, when in the rear of their garden and in their seating area close to the boundary, the proposed roof form would be extremely dominant and would be unacceptably overbearing.

To the rear, the residential park home at [address] to the boundary. It has windows and a door in the closest elevation. It has its main aspect to the west and east and the larger parts of its garden are also to the east. The relatively narrow space to the north, adjacent to the appeal property, is of limited size and appears to have less functional use than the areas to the three remaining sides. The high, end gable of the proposal would however entirely dominate the adjacent plot. I find that the height and proximity of the structure would be entirely overbearing for those residents. It would in this respect represent poor design given the lack of consideration for the living conditions of the adjoining residents.

The proposal would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the residents of both [address] and [address] due to the loss of outlook that would result if this overbearing structure were to be built. It would also increase shading within the rear garden of number 203. It would therefore conflict with Policy 29(ii) as it would fail to respect the context within which it sits. It would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework which requires that developments achieve a high standard of amenity.

In conclusion, whilst the proposal would not harm the character of the area, it would be unacceptably overbearing and intrusive for the neighbouring residents. [name] have had regard to the information put forward by the appellant and I note the lack of objection from [address], I do not find that there are any matters that outweigh my concerns. I therefore dismiss the appeal.