Appeal 6006361

The appeal is dismissed.

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 issues are the effects of the proposed development on (a) the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene and (b) the living conditions of the occupier of [address].

The appeal property is an extended 2-storey semi-detached dwelling situated within a primarily residential area comprising a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced houses and flats. The other semi-detached dwelling is single storey and is an undistinguished design which is incongruous within the context of the character and appearance of the streetscene and the surrounding area.

The property has already been altered by the erection of a 2-storey rear extension and a single storey conservatory. The alterations to the rear of the property are visible from [address]. To the side of the property, and adjacent to the shared boundary with [address], is a single storey detached garage which has a rear extension.

The proposed development includes the erection of a side extension which would be 2-storeys in height where it would occupy the footprint of the extended garage. The side extension would then become single storey, and this would be part of a larger single storey flat roof addition to the rear of the property. The side extension’s flank wall would be set back by circa 0.2 metres from the shared boundary with No. 202. This distance would be less than the 1.5 metres set-back for 2-storey extensions referred to in [name] E3 of the council’s [name], [name] and [name] Guidance (SPG).

When viewed from the road, the appellant claims that the appeal scheme would appear as a large dwelling with a unified roof form and similar fenestration. The external materials would match the host property. The council claim that the side extension would not be perceived as being subservient to the original property.

As acknowledged by the appellant, the proposed 2-storey side extension would not be lower in height than the host property and the front elevation would not be set back from the property’s front elevation. The appellant’s claim that the council’s SPG does not specifically require a 2-storey side extension to be either lower in height that the host property’s roof or stepped back at first floor level from the existing front elevation. However, [name] E1 does refer to, in most situations, it being appropriate for an extension to step down and step back and appear secondary to the host dwelling.

The surrounding residential area comprises a mix of dwelling designs. These dwellings are of modest size and, including between each pair of semi-detached dwellings, possess a gap between the shared boundaries and the flank walls at least at first floor level. Although the extended garage is sited close to the shared boundary with No. 202, it is only single storey in height and is detached from the property. Even when taken together with the single storey detached garages to the side of No. 202, there is a significant visual and physical gap between these neighbouring properties at first floor level that contributes positively to the streetscene along [address].

By reason of its scale and siting, together with the lack of any meaningful set-back for the proposed side extension’s flank wall from the shared boundary with No. 202, the resulting property would appear a large, bulky and visually intrusive dwelling within the streetscene along [address]. The already incongruous appearance of this pair of semi-detached dwellings would be accentuated by the resulting property.

The resulting property would be materially larger than the neighbouring dwellings and this bulkiness would be accentuated by both the proposed crown roof and the full width single storey rear addition. Although there is a conservatory extending across the full width of the existing rear elevation, the proposed single storey rear extension would not be of the same lightweight construction and would extend across the full width of the enlarged property. The bulk of the rear and roof of the resulting property would be visible from [address].

The appellant has identified other schemes where 2-storey side extensions have been erected albeit details of their context and their full planning histories have not been provided. Limited weight is, therefore, given to these other schemes in the determination of this appeal which has been assessed based upon its own planning circumstances.

For the reasons given, it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene and, as such, it would conflict with Policies 28S, 29 and 30 of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 (LP) 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.

As identified, the proposed 2-storey side extension would occupy the footprint of the extended garage. Projecting further along the shared boundary with No. 202 would be the flank wall of the proposed single storey rear addition. The living accommodation within No.202 and the associated rear facing windows are sited away from the shared boundary because of the siting of this neighbouring property’s detached garage. To the rear of this garage is a small lightweight addition which appears to be of temporary, rather than of permanent, construction.

Although sited on the footprint of the extended garage, the current single storey flank wall would be replaced by the proposed 2-storey side elevation. This side elevation would be visible in the outlook of some of the windows within the rear elevation of No. 202 and the rear private amenity space. However, the change to the outlook and sense of enclosure for the occupiers of No. 202 by reason of the proposed 2-storey side elevation would not alone amount to a reason for this appeal to fail.

However, projecting further long the shared boundary from this 2-storey flank wall would be the side elevation of the proposed single storey rear extension. In combination, the cumulative length and massing of the appeal scheme’s proposed flank wall being sited adjacent to the shared boundary would represent a substantial adverse change in the outlook of the occupiers of No. 202 and an increased sense of physical and visual enclosure would also occur. There would be a conflict with the guidance contained at [name] E7. In reaching this judgement the lack of objection from the current occupiers of No. 202 to the proposed development have been noted but others may occupy this neighbouring property at a future date.

Accordingly, it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] and, as such, there would be a conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the guidance in the SPG. The Framework refers to developments achieving a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. LP Policy 32 addresses general pollution considerations rather than specifically the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed.