Appeal 6002532

The appeal is dismissed.

The revised National Planning Policy Framework was published in December 2025 but does not raise any new matters which affect the assessment of this appeal scheme.

The existing drawings do not reflect the current appearance of the garage/store outbuilding the subject of this appeal. However, the appeal has been assessed based upon the description of development.

It is considered that the main issues are the effects of the proposed development on (a) the character and appearance of the surrounding area and (b) the living standards of the future occupiers.

The appeal property is a single storey outbuilding within the curtilage of a 2-storey flatted development which is located within an urban area comprising residential and commercial buildings of varying heights and designs. The variations in the uses, design and siting of the buildings, together with the variety of external materials, results in there being no consistency in the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The proposed development seeks to re-use the outbuilding as a dwelling with parts of the curtilage reconfigured to accommodate parking for the existing flats and the proposed dwelling. The appellant claims that the appeal scheme would make an effective use of previously developed land by re-using an existing outbuilding, within the urban area. This would be a benefit of the proposed development to which, when coupled with easy access to local facilities and public transport, is given significant weight in the determination of this appeal.

As identified by the council, within the surrounding area no other examples of dwellings being erected to the rear of other residential properties were observed during the site visit. There are considerable variations in the relationship between dwellings and footways/carriageways with varying depths of front/side gardens. The fenestration of the outbuilding would change but from the turning head and neighbouring properties the proposed dwelling would possess a similar scale and appearance as the outbuilding.

Although sited to the rear of a 2-storey building, because of its size and siting of the outbuilding, coupled with the width of the access drive extending from the turning head, the proposed dwelling would neither disrupt the appearance of the streetscene nor the varied character of the surrounding area. Further, because of its siting the proposed dwelling would be seen within the context of the existing flatted development.

For these reasons, the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and, as such, it would not conflict with Policies 28S, 29 and 30 of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 (LP), 2000 and [name] N1, N2 and N3 of the council’s [name], [name] and [name] Guidance (SPG). Amongst other matters, these policies and guidance require proposals to be of the highest quality design and to contribute positively to the area's character and identity, including taking into account local context. Policy ED2 of the Clapham Neighbourhood Plan 2021 (NP) concerns development near rivers and, as such, it is not of direct relevance to this Main Issue.

[name] N3 seeks as an average 13 metre rear garden depth associated with proposed dwellings. It was, however, observed during the site visit that there are significant variations in the extent of private amenity space associated with residential properties, including the rear gardens of the ground floor flats of the flatted development.

However, the appeal scheme would have a very limited area of private amenity space to the side and rear of the proposed dwelling. The depth of the proposed rear amenity space would be around 2.4 metres, and its boundary would substantially comprise the single/2-storey rear wall of 1 The Warren. By reason of this wall and the limited depth, there would be an oppressive and strong sense of enclosure for the future occupiers when using the proposed amenity space. The outlook from the proposed lounge windows, which would predominantly be towards the rear wall of No. 1, would have a similar strong sense of enclosure.

Further, the depth of the proposed side amenity space would be less than the rear amenity space. This side amenity space would be visually and physically dominated by the vegetation which is adjacent to the shared boundary with [address]. The practicality of the future occupiers being able to effectively use the side amenity space would be materially compromised.

As a proposed 2-bedroom dwelling it is a reasonable assumption that it might be occupied by a family at a future date where a child might need an area for outdoor active play as referenced in LP Policy 2S. The size and configuration of the proposed amenity space would offer limited potential for active play.

Even if this was not the case, the depth and configuration of the proposed side and rear amenity spaces would limit their usefulness for typical domestic outdoor activities, including siting out and drying washing. There would be unacceptable and cramped living standards for the future occupiers of the appeal scheme because of the depth and configuration of the proposed amenity space. The floorspaces of the proposed habitable rooms achieving, or exceeding, the national space standards would not obviate the unacceptable harm associated with the inadequate size, depth and configuration of the amenity space.

On this issue it is concluded that the proposed development would not result in satisfactory living standards for the future occupiers of the proposed development and, as such, it would conflict with LP Policy 2S and the guidance contained in [name] N3. LP Policy 30 does not specifically address matters related to the living standards of future occupiers.

The council acknowledge that there is not a 5-year supply of deliverable housing land and, as such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out at paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is applicable. There would be a significant benefit associated with the effective re-use of an existing outbuilding at an accessible location within the urban area for residential purposes. However, the appeal scheme would deliver a single dwelling which would contribute towards meeting the housing shortfall but only in a modest way. Accordingly, the delivery of a single dwelling is only given moderate weight in the determination of this appeal.

Although there is no national guidance on the extent of private amenity space, the Framework does require developments to achieve a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. This would not be the case for this appeal scheme for the reasons which have been given related to the amenity space proposed. This matter significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefit of the proposed dwelling.

Third parties have raised a number of other matters, including highways safety associated with the access. However, there are no reasons to disagree with the council’s assessment that these other matters are reasons for planning permission being withheld and this appeal failing.

However, this is a case where it is judged that the identified adverse impact of the proposed development on the living standards of the future occupiers would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits which have been identified and the lack of unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed.