Appeal 6004804

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the development in the banner header above is taken from the application form. [name] note that the Council amended the description in its decision notice to make explicit reference to a side extension and the removal of existing structures, based on the evidence, I cannot be satisfied that the appellant was agreeable to this change. Nevertheless, I have assessed the appeal based on the plans before me and note that the proposed extension would span to the rear and side of the dwelling.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

The area surrounding the appeal site is distinctly rural in character, comprising countryside with dispersed pockets of development. Mature landscaping is a predominant feature within the area including along roadside boundaries.

The appeal property is a modest detached bungalow on a plot formerly associated with the nearby [name] listed Manor. Despite frequent mature landscaping in the area, including two protected trees at the site frontage, the bungalow remains visible in the street scene due to an open gap in the frontage planting.

The appeal proposal in part seeks to replace existing rear structures with an extension to the rear, of greater overall width than the host dwelling. The extension has been designed with a flat roof which would sit above the eaves height of the host dwelling, incorporating two roof lanterns.

The extension would appear as a boxy and incongruous addition to the dwelling, the height of the flat roof failing to integrate successfully to the original roof form. The positioning of one of the roof lanterns would obscure and detract from the existing chimney which would further emphasise the proposals failure to assimilate with the host dwelling.

Given the overall width of the extension, and aforementioned positioning of one of the roof lanterns, the proposal would be visible in public vantage points, including the immediate street scene, as well as in medium range views including from the nearby road junction. Even in acceptance that longer, wider range views would be limited due to the presence of mature landscaping, a lack of visibility does not provide sufficient justification for allowing poor design.

Although the extension would leave a relatively short rear garden, when taken in the context of the proposed extensions to the garden area, and the remaining space to the side and front of the dwelling, I do not find that the proposal would appear cramped in the overall plot.

Nevertheless, the harm which I have identified through the incongruous additions would be fundamentally harmful to the overall design of the dwelling, even noting that it does not form part of an urban environment which displays uniformity in appearance. On this basis, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

I have therefore identified conflict with Policies 28S, 29 and 30 of the Bedford Borough Council Local Plan 2030, which collectively seek to achieve high quality design, including in respect to massing and height, which contributes positively to the area’s character and identity.

The Council did not resist the proposal based on the proposed change of use to extend the residential garden. Based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to take a different view on this matter. I also note that no harm was identified in respect to highway, ecology or living condition impacts. Nevertheless, these matters do not specifically weigh in favour of the proposal.

I am aware that the site is proximate to the [name] listed buildings known as [address] and [address]. Mindful of the statutory duty set out in s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving their setting. The verdant surroundings of the listed buildings, to which the appeal site forms part of, positively contribute to their setting.

Nevertheless, given the location and extent of the proposed development, I consider that it would preserve the setting of the nearby listed buildings and the contribution it makes to their significance. I note that the Council has no concerns in this regard either. However, a lack of heritage harm does not alter my overall conclusions in respect to the character and appearance of the area as set out in my main issue above.

I understand that the design of the extension derives from the proposed warm deck roof whereby insulation is placed on top of the rafters/joists and the roof verging is then placed over the insulation, in order to meet Building Regulations. In this regard it is presented that the proposed extension would represent better energy efficiency for the dwelling. Both this, and the proposed solar panels represent a benefit to the proposal, at a time where the Council has declared a climate change emergency. Given the scale of the proposal, the benefits would be modest.

Moreover, based on the evidence before me, I cannot be satisfied that the design presented is the only reasonable, and least harmful means of securing an upgraded and energy efficient dwelling. The benefits associated with the proposal therefore do not outweigh the harm which I have identified above.

I have concluded that the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no other material considerations which indicate planning permission should be granted. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.