Appeal 3327211

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two-storey rear extension and first floor extension over garage at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/23/01829/FULL, dated 1 June 2023, subject to the following conditions:

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

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.

The first floor window in the south-west elevation of the first floor extension hereby permitted shall be permanently fitted with obscured glass of a type to substantially restrict vision through it at all times and shall be non-opening, unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7m above the floor of the room in which the window is installed. No further windows or other openings shall be formed in the south-west elevation.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 23013/4 and 23013/5.

The appeal proposal follows a similar scheme for which planning permission was granted. The two-storey element is identical in both schemes. The Council’s concerns relate only to the proposed first-floor extension which has been revised as detailed below. Accordingly, this appeal focusses on that extension.

The proposed first-floor extension would be sited above an existing garage. It would extend beyond the flank wall of the appeal property close to the boundary with No 2 The Hollies (No 2), whereas the previously approved first-floor extension was shown as flush with this wall. The depth and ridge height of the currently proposed extension have been increased and it would be about 0.5m closer to the boundary with No 2. The Council raises no objections to the design of the extension and there are no reasons to disagree.

The first-floor extension would be 1m from the boundary with No 2 and located behind a summerhouse standing at the far corner of the neighbours’ garden. It would be largely screened by the existing mass of the appeal property (No 3) in the primarily oblique views from No 2 and its garden. Behind it would be the side elevation of No 4 The Hollies. Within this context, I am not convinced by the evidence before me that the impact of locating the extension some 0.5m closer to the topmost end of No 2’s garden would be materially different to the impact of the previously approved development. In either case, there would be two-storey development close to the boundaries at the northern edge of No 2’s garden due to the layout and tight grain of development on the housing estate.

Considering together the distance between the extension and No 2, their orientations and the similarities between the approved scheme and the appeal proposal, I conclude that the appeal proposal would not result in an overbearing impact, sense of enclosure or cause an unacceptable loss of outlook for the occupiers of No 2. The objections from Shefford Town Council and neighbouring residents do not affect these conclusions.

For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the proposed development complies with Policy HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan, the [name] and Section 12 of the NPPF. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

A condition is necessary requiring the use of matching materials to preserve the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Obscured glazing is required in the first-floor window in the south-west elevation of the first-floor extension to safeguard the privacy of occupiers of adjoining properties. I have included a condition identifying the approved drawings for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.