Appeal 6003769

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s notice of refusal references the unacceptable overbearing impact of the proposal to occupiers of 1, 2 and [address]. The officers delegated report however also includes within its assessment [address]. No 4 is also included within the recommended reason for refusal within that report. In making my decision I have considered the effect on No 4 in the main issue of living conditions of neighbouring occupants.

The Council’s notice of refusal identifies the overbearing impact on neighbouring occupiers to be the reason for refusal. The officers delegated report also includes matters of light, and the appellants have had the opportunity to address this in their appeal statement. Accordingly, in making my decision on the main issue of living conditions of neighbouring occupants, I have included light.

The Council raises no concerns with the single storey rear extension, nor the front bay window, canopy, and dropped kerb. From my site visit I see no reason to reach a different conclusion and have not considered these elements of the proposal further.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at 1, 2, 3 and [address] with particular regard to outlook and daylight.

The appeal site is situated in a modern housing estate comprising a broad mix of houses. Properties are arranged along staggered building lines and varied orientations around small culs-de-sacs and parking courts off a spine road. The appeal property fronts [address] and is a two-storey house with a single-storey side component.

[address] comprises a cul-de-sac to the side of the appeal site with a terrace of three houses (No. 1, 2 and [address]) positioned with their rear gardens running up towards the side of the appeal property. A further terrace of houses (No 4, 5, 6 and [address]) fronts a parking court and faces towards the rear of the appeal property. No 4 is entirely inset from the parking court and sat directly behind the appeal site, surrounded by rear garden fence lines and accessed from the side.

The proposed development seeks to extend the house sideways, partially at first floor over the existing single-storey side portion of the house, and also behind it to form a two-storey rear extension. The proposal would introduce development at a greater scale and with a new gabled element closer to the rear boundary of neighbouring properties in [address].

Whilst the distance to No 1, 2, 3 and 4 would be greatly reduced and outlook affected, the most significant impact would be felt at No 3. The full depth of the two-storey side extension would sit across the entire width of the rear of the garden of No 3 resulting in a dominant and oppressive presence close to the property boundary.

In making my decision, I have had regard to the [name] (2023) ([name]). It explicitly seeks to avoid the overbearing impact of extensions on neighbouring properties and sets out separation distances to avoid overlooking and protect neighbouring amenity. The proposal would be at a distance substantially less than the minimum distance set out within the [name] when considering the impact of development on neighbouring houses, and in particular No 3.

Whilst the surrounding housing estate contains tight separation distances in numerous locations, this layout predates the current Development Plan and [name]. Whilst it may not be appropriate to strictly apply the [name] separation distances in this context, there would nevertheless be a significant worsening in outlook from No 3 as a result of reduced separation.

The Design Guide also contains a 25 degree guidance to measure loss of light. Whilst no separate daylight or sunlight analysis has been undertaken, the BRE guidelines contained within the [name] provide a suitable assessment framework for domestic proposals. The proposed extension would break the 25 degree rule. While the diminishing form of the gable roof would reduce this impact to some degree, combined with the harm I have found to the outlook, in particular from No 3, there would be clear and unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The Design provides a standard framework to assess the impact of all domestic extensions on neighbouring properties in the Central Bedfordshire Council area. It reduces subjectivity and is based on the nationally recognised [name] (BRE) guidance. Whilst no separate daylight or sunlight analysis has been undertaken, the BRE guidelines suffice for domestic proposals such as

Overall therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, in particular at [address], with particular regard to outlook and light. As such it conflicts with Policy HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021) which requires, amongst other matters, for development not to have an unacceptable adverse impact upon nearby existing uses, including impacts on amenity.

I note that the proposed development has been designed to be visually subordinate and reflect the materials of the existing property and the character of the area. The Council also finds that it causes no harm to a number of other nearby neighbouring properties or parking provision, and I see no reason to disagree. However, the absence of harm in these matters does not alter my overall finding on the main issue above.

I note that the Town Council has supported the proposal, and I understand the wishes of the appellants to improve the functionality of the house. However, as general planning is concerned with land use in the public interest, the personal benefits to the appellant do not provide sufficient justification to outweigh the harm I have identified from the proposal.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan and that there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.