Appeal 3310352

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on (i) the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, and future occupiers of the appeal property; and (ii) the character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

The appeal site lies within a predominately residential area comprising a variety of property types. The appeal site is a modest sized semi-detached two storey property adjacent to a detached bungalow, No. [address].

There are existing windows at first floor on the rear elevation of the appeal site which offer opportunities of overlooking into the neighbouring gardens. The proposed development would bring the property closer at first floor to the shared boundary with neighbouring gardens and include a window serving bedroom 4.

[name] E5 of the Design Guidance, [name], [name] and Small Infill Development (2000) (the Design Guidance) confirms that where a primary window directly overlooks a neighbouring garden the window should not be closer than 9m from the relevant boundary. The proposed development does not comply with this design code.

Notwithstanding this mutual overlooking does exist between properties in this area; the scale, positioning and design of the proposed development would not dimmish the levels of privacy currently experienced.

I note that the proposed development includes an alternative arrangement for the provision of a high level window at first floor serving the 4th bedroom, however as I have found that the proposed development would not harm living conditions of neighbouring properties in terms of loss of privacy there is no need for me to consider the alternative scheme. The proposal therefore would not result in poor living conditions for future occupiers of the appeal property.

The proposed two storey extension would project close to the shared boundary with No. [address]. The private rear garden of No. 2a is smaller in depth than the appeal site. The proposed development would extend further than the depth of the neighbouring garden and due to its scale, proximity to the boundary and design would be stark and overbearing to the occupiers of No. 2a.

I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of [address].

There is conflict with Policies 29, 30 and 32 of the Bedford Borough Council Local Plan 2030 (2020) (the Local Plan) which seeks amongst other things to ensure development contributes positively to an area, respects the privacy and amenity of adjoining neighbours.

There is conflict with the Design Guidance, [name] E5 and E7 which seeks to ensure developments harmonise with the existing building and area.

The Design Guide suggests that the total ground flood area of an extended house should be no more than one-third of the size of the plot with the remaining two thirds being garden. The Appellant contents that the proposed development would be less than one third of the plot size. Even if this were the case the proposed development would be add significant bulk to the existing dwelling and would appear cramped on the plot.

I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

There is conflict with Policies 29 and 30 of the Local Plan which seek amongst other things to ensure development is of high design quality and responds positively to the character and context of an area.

There is conflict with the Design Guidance which seeks to ensure developments harmonise with the existing building and area, resisting cramped and out of keeping extensions.

For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.