Appeal 6004373

The appeal is dismissed.

A Unilateral Undertaking has been submitted during the course of the appeal, dated 23 April 2026 (the UU). This has been taken into account in determining the appeal. Additional plans have also been submitted with the appeal which include a tracking diagram, street scene drawing and section, and a plan highlighting other developments in the vicinity that the appellant considers relevant. I have taken those plans into account since I am satisfied that they do not alter the proposal and no party would be prejudiced by their inclusion in the appeal.

The Council have confirmed that the submission of the UU addresses its third reason for refusal, relating to effects on designated habitats sites. Since this is no longer a matter in dispute between the main parties I have not dealt with it as a main issue in the appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, and on the living conditions of the occupants of nearby properties, with particular regard to privacy.

The appeal site lies close to the centre of Dunstable and the surrounding area comprises relatively dense residential development interspersed with commercial and community uses as well as green spaces. While residential properties in the area vary in their age and appearance, the properties along this part of [site address] predominantly address the road, having a generally consistent front building line and with long thin gardens extending to the rear. These characteristics contribute positively to the character of the area and provide local distinctiveness through providing feelings of space around the buildings. I observed some other buildings behind the main [site address] frontage, including nearby behind no.146/ 148, on the appeal site and the adjoining land to the west. However, these sit unobtrusively behind the main building, and do not detract from the prevailing pattern of development.

In contrast, the proposed site layout would appear heavily cramped due to the width of the terrace and its close proximity to three of the site’s boundaries, heavily diminishing any feelings of space around the building. The space in front of the houses would be heavily dominated by car parking and vehicle manoeuvring areas, as well as the necessary cycle and refuse stores, with only small areas remaining for some soft landscaping. The layout of the development would therefore be heavily at odds with the prevailing character of the surrounding area.

The development behind 146/148 [site address] is a modest semi-detached pair, set perpendicular to the street. I do not consider it to be comparable to the scheme before me and its planning permission pre-dates the current development plan and National Planning Policy Framework. [address] comprises a distinct development of homes set around a series of cul de sacs, but still with similar set backs from the street and gardens behind. While acknowledging both these developments have some different characteristics to the prevailing local pattern, the contrast is not as stark as with the appeal scheme and they do not provide justification for its effects. The same applies for the other examples of backland development evidenced by the appellant in the wider area, which are similarly on more spacious plots.

For these reasons the proposal would be heavily at odds with, and harmful to, the character and appearance of the area. This conflicts with Policy HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2021 (the LP) which requires high quality development which responds positively to context, and Policy HQ8 which resists back-land development which is against the existing pattern and grain of development, and expects high quality design.

The Council does not dispute that a distance of between 24-26m would exist between the proposed houses and the upper floor rear facing windows of the neighbouring properties on [site address] . This exceeds the recommended distances in the Council’s Design Guide and would be sufficient to retain adequate privacy. The proposed enclosed balconies would not project beyond the building’s envelope, and would have an opening size comparable to a window. As such, and given the distance to the [site address] properties, they would not cause a harmful loss of privacy to the windows of those neighbouring buildings.

Despite this, concerns are raised for the effects on the private rear gardens of the [site address] properties to the south. The rear gardens of nos.130, 132 and 134 currently have good levels of privacy arising from the absence of development behind, and I note the effects of development on those rear gardens was raised by the Inspector in the earlier appeal1. The garden of no.136 similarly experiences good levels of privacy due to the limited number of upper level windows on the existing [site address] building. 1 Appeal APP/P0240/W/19/3238865

The proposal would introduce a continuous wall of windows and balconies looking towards those gardens and at the first floor level those windows would serve the main living spaces and amenity spaces of the properties. While the site section shows some views into the garden of no.136 would be partially obscured by an outbuilding, this would be unlikely to obscure views of the remaining garden and does not provide assurances for the effects on nos.130, 132 and 134. While taller fencing could obscure views I do not have those details and cannot be satisfied that the other resulting effects would be acceptable. If the builders yard were reinstated in full there could be effects on neighbouring living conditions. However, it has not been substantiated that those effects would be more harmful than this proposal.

In conclusion on this main issue the proposal would cause an unacceptable loss of privacy to the occupants of the [site address] properties, contrary to policies HQ1 and HQ8 of the LP insofar as they require a good standard of amenity for existing occupants.

The Council highlight other concerns arising from the tightness of the proposed layout, including the quality of the communal space and its proximity to the east most proposed houses. [name] share these concerns, I otherwise find the standard of proposed accommodation to be acceptable, particularly as each proposed house would benefit from a private enclosed balcony. Issues relating to the standard of proposed accommodation do not therefore weigh against the proposal.

The site plan submitted with the appeal shows that a 7m long vehicle could reasonably turn on the site and rejoin [site address] in a forward gear. This is acceptable, although the tightness of the site layout means any slight obstruction or badly parked car would prevent this from being achieved.

The site is within 12.6km linear distance of the [name] and Woods Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Regulation 63(1) of the Habitats Regulations2 indicates the requirement for an Appropriate Assessment is only necessary where the competent authority is minded to give consent for the proposal. As the appeal is being dismissed on other grounds it is not therefore necessary to address this in any further detail. For the purposes of the balancing exercise below, however, I have assumed this matter is capable of resolution.

The site lies close to some grade II listed buildings, including the former windmill and [name]. The setting of those buildings, and the backdrop within which their significance is experienced, comprises the relatively dense pattern of development of the surrounding area. Given their distance from the appeal site, as well as intervening structures, I am satisfied that the proposal would preserve their setting. For the same reasons, the proposal would preserve the setting of the Dunstable Conservation Area.

A revised version of the Framework was recently subject to public consultation. Given the uncertainty surrounding the timing of its final publication and the final form which its policies may take, it attracts only limited weight. Weight has been 2 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as amended given to the benefit of the site’s sustainable location below, and I do not consider that the references in the consultation version of the Framework necessitate additional weight.

I am aware of the additional concerns raised by third parties. [name] have not addressed these further since they would not alter the outcome of the appeal.

The Council accepts that it does not have a five year land supply for housing. As such, the provisions of paragraph 11d) of the Framework are relevant to the appeal. For the purposes of this exercise I have assumed that policies in the Framework which protect habitats sites do not provide a clear reason for refusing the proposed development. Paragraph 11d)ii. therefore states that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole, and having particular regard to the policies given in the relevant footnote.

The adverse impacts of granting permission would be the creation of a development heavily at odds with the prevailing local character as well as harm to the living conditions of the occupants of the adjoining properties. As a consequence, the proposal would be in conflict with paragraphs 129 and 135 of the Framework insofar as they relate to the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character, the importance of well designed, attractive and healthy spaces, sympathy for local character and high standards of amenity. Through failing to reflect the local design policies the proposal would also conflict with paragraph 139 of the Framework. The adverse impacts here would be significant and long lasting and taken together they attract very significant weight.

In terms of benefits, the proposal would provide six new homes. These would be on an existing developed site, in a sustainable location close to the centre of Dunstable and with good accessibility to services and facilities as well as public transport, in line with paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. The proposal would contribute to the national objective to boost the supply of homes and this is of particular importance here given the local undersupply of land for homes, which the appellant considers could be as low as 3.8 years. There would also be economic benefits arising from the development, both during the construction process and from ongoing expenditure into the local economy by future occupants. Together these benefits attract considerable weight, given the quantum of homes proposed and even if the appellant’s housing land supply figure were used. The appeal decision referenced in a different authority, and in a different context of considerations, does not bind the weight I have given to these benefits3.

In conclusion, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, having regard to the provisions of paragraph 11d). The proposal would not, therefore, benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the Framework. 3

The proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are not material considerations of sufficient weight, including approaches in the Framework, which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.