Appeal 3352541

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single-storey side and rear extensions to form enlarged living space/day room attached single garage, relocated wall to rear of garden area, new low-level wall to enclose front garden/extended driveway, loft conversion with front and rear dormers, widening to existing crossover, new pitched roof to existing bay and conversion of existing integral double garage to living space at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/01159/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out below: (1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. (2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: JJ23-0002: Sheet 2; and JJ23-0002 Sheet 1 [name].

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.

Prior to the relocation of the boundary wall a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include details of all existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows on the land, identify those to be retained and set out measures for their protection throughout the course of development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

The Council considered that the rear extensions, low-level wall to enclose front garden/extended driveway, loft conversion with front and rear dormers, widening to existing crossover, new pitched roof to existing bay, conversion of existing integral double garage to living space and relocation of the wall to rear of garden area subject to clarification on landscaping to be retained was acceptable. I have no substantive evidence to lead me to a different conclusion upon this part of the proposed development.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed side extension on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is a corner plot on the junction of [address] and [address]. The area is characterised by predominately large detached two storey properties. [address] adjacent the side of the appeal site is an open entrance feature leading into the estate. The road has a tree lined verge between it and the footpath. Along the side of adjacent plots, in general, is additional landscaping with the properties set back from the footpath. The appeal site and the property opposite No. [address] sit at the end of the tree lined road. There is a sense of openness to this entrance road.

A planning appeal1 has previously been dismissed at the appeal site. I understand this comprised a large single storey extension projecting from the front elevation of the appeal property along the side boundary adjacent the footpath to the rear of the plot. I agree with the previous Inspector’s decision and reasoning that the private landscape areas play a role in the openness of [address] and complements the extensive grassed and treed verge between the highway and the footpath.

I observed during my site visit that the two storey gable of No. 7 is closer to the footpath than the appeal property, which was also recognised by the previous Inspector and that the curved side boundary wall is a prominent feature which extends to the edge of the footpath adjacent the rear elevation of No. 7.

The proposed side extension would remove the landscape area to the side of the appeal property’s built form extending the building to the edge of the footpath. Landscaping would remain between the relocated wall to the rear garden and footpath which would soften to a degree the side extension from views when travelling into the estate.

Whilst the single storey extension would be obvious in the streetscene, given the wide tree lined entrance and the margin set back of the two storey gable of No. 7 opposite, I find that the proposed side extension would not detract from the openness and would not harm the character and appearance of the area.

The Council have referenced other proposals for relocation of boundaries and extensions within the estate, however these do not appear directly comparable given the open tree lined verge and landscaped area along the entrance road of [address].

There is no conflict with Policies 28, 29 and 30 of the Bedford Borough Council Local Plan 2030 (2020) which seek amongst other things to ensure 1 APP/K0235/D/21/3287026 development is of high design quality and responds positively to the character and context of an area.

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

I have imposed a standard condition relating to the commencement of development and a condition specifying the relevant plans as this provides certainty. In order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area I have imposed conditions concerning materials and the retention of landscaping to the side of the relocated boundary wall.