Appeal 6006247

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a two storey side extension at [site address] , Bedfordshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02272/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: 0265 SK01 [name].

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

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.

It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene.

The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling situated within a primarily residential area. The streetscene along Furzefield comprises pairs of semi-detached dwellings of a similar design to the property which are set back from the footways to the rear of front gardens which are landscaped and used for parking.

There is generally a gap between each pair of semi-detached dwellings, especially at first floor level, which enables access to outbuildings that are set well back from the footways. Some of these other dwellings have been extended which has narrowed the gaps, including at first floor level, between some pairs of semi-detached dwellings. The streetscene adjacent to the property has a spacious character and appearance with, as the council identify, a rhythm associated with the varying sizes of gaps between the pairs of semi-detached dwellings.

The proposed development includes a 2-storey side extension with a flank wall that would be set back from the shared boundary with No. 19 by about 0.9 metres. This would be less than the 1.5 metres at first floor level sought by [name] E3 in the guidance contained in the council’s [name], [name] & Small Infill Developments Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). However, the ridge height of the proposed extension would be lower than the height of the host property. The front elevation of the first floor would not be set back from the host property’s front elevation. It would, however, be set back when compared to the 2-storey forward projection which is shared with No.15.

Although there would be a reduction in the gap between the resulting property and No. 19, the proposed 2-storey side extension would appear a subservient addition to the host property, thereby reflecting the SPG’s guidance. There would be a sufficient gap to avoid the appearance of the resulting property being a bulky and cramped form of development within the streetscene. This gap would also avoid a terracing effect and would generally maintain the streetscene’s rhythm, character and appearance of distinct pairs of semi-detached dwellings separated by gaps. The character and appearance the streetscene would be maintained. If a similar extension was proposed to the side of No. 19, then this would be required to be assessed against relevant planning policies at that time.

The appellant has referred to personal circumstances to justify the proposed development, but these matters do not relate to the planning circumstances of the appeal scheme and, as such, they have been given very limited weight in the determination of this appeal. Similar weight has been given to the other schemes referenced by the appellant because this appeal has been determined based upon its own planning circumstances.

For the reasons given, it is concluded that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene and, as such it would not conflict with Policies 28S, 29 and 30 of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 and the guidance contained in the SPG. Amongst other matters, these policies 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.

For reasons of clarity, conditions are necessary to identify the approved drawings and to require the use of external material that match the host property. Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be allowed.