Appeal 6004531

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are:

The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, and

The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of 14 Milebush with particular regard to appearance, outlook and access to light.

The appeal site is set within a suburban cul-de-sac formed of predominantly detached homes. Homes are of similar styles featuring a small portfolio of base house types although many have been altered or extended since their original construction. Even so, the general style and proportions of the original dwellings has been maintained.

The proposed extension would be set above the existing front projecting attached garage. It would increase the height of the ridge of the roof to the garage and introduce an upper floor projecting element complete with a hipped roof to the front. The extension would dominate this forward projection and leave no trace of the existing roof slope to the garage. It would, therefore, result in a prominent feature that does not align with the style or appearance of the existing dwelling or that of the remainder of the street.

As such, I find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the existing property and street scene. The proposal thus conflicts with policy HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (CBLP), [name] (CBDG) and provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

I have noted the similarities of the proposed extension to others constructed at homes locally, in particular the extension to number 5 Milebush shares some characteristics as this home also has a front projecting extension with a hipped roof. However, these extensions, including the one at 5 Milebush, are all subordinate to the roof slope in which they are located leaving elements of sloped roof visible to either side of the extensions. This modest, but distinct, difference means that the other examples of extensions ensure a degree of subordinacy to the parent dwelling and, as a result, integrate in a more satisfactory manner. This would not be the case here, where the profile of the existing roof would be completely lost.

Number [site address] is set slightly further forward of its neighbour at number 14. At present, this results in the impression of a blank wall when viewed from the front facing windows at this neighbour. This, however, is limited due to the slope of the roof.

This proposal would increase the height of the roof and the overall impression of an unbroken blank wall to this aspect. Furthermore, the position of the extension is almost directly south of number 14 and this would further limit the amount of daylight and sunlight that would reach the front facing windows, especially at ground floor level. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would appear overbearing and result in a loss of outlook for the occupants of the neighbouring property at number 14.

The proposal thus fails to comply with policy HQ1 of the CBLP, the guidance in the CBDG and the Framework insofar as there would be an unacceptable adverse impact upon nearby existing residents.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.