Appeal 6006526

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

No [site address] is a two-storey detached dwelling located in a prominent, open corner position at the junction with [address], with a dual aspect to both roads. The property maintains a consistent building line with other properties on the eastern side of [address], set back from the road behind an area of hardstanding that partially wraps around the dwelling and provides access from both [address] and [address].

With some limited exceptions, for example the garages opposite the junction with [address], the established building line is largely maintained on the opposite side of [address] to the appeal site and along [address]. These prevailing characteristics contribute positively to the open and spacious character of the surrounding streetscene.

The proposed garage would be modest in size, measuring approximately 5 metres wide and 5.9 metres deep, with a flat roof. It would be set significantly back from the elevation facing [address]; however, the garage would be positioned completely forward of the elevation fronting [address] and the established building line of neighbouring properties along [address].

The garage would be partially screened by close-boarded fencing on three sides and from vegetation growing on the section of fencing adjacent to the pavement. However, the vegetation cannot be relied upon to screen the proposal as there is no certainty it would remain or will not die.

Despite the slightly lower land levels within the appeal site, the garage’s position and height mean it would project noticeably above the boundary fence located to the rear of the proposed garage and would be highly visible when approaching along [address]. Consequently, its presence would harmfully disrupt the established building line and erode the open character of this prominent corner plot. This would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. It follows that a condition to protect existing landscaping would not be sufficient to remedy the harm either.

For the reasons above, the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies 28S (i and ii), 29 (i and ii), and 30 (i and ii) of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030. Together, amongst other matters, these seek proposals of high-quality design which contribute positively to the areas character and respect the context within which it sits. The proposal would also conflict with the [name], [name] and [name] Guidance (2000), which amongst other matters, seeks extensions that harmonise with the street and its setting.

No harm has been identified to the living conditions of nearby occupiers or to highway safety. However, an absence of harm on these matters weighs neither for nor against the proposal.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other nearby detached garages. One is located close to the appeal site on the opposite side of [address]; however, it is set further back from the road than the appeal proposal and maintains the established building line. It is therefore not directly comparable.

The appellant also cites a detached garage at [address]. This garage is not viewed within the same streetscene context as the appeal proposal, and I have limited information about that scheme. I cannot therefore be sure of the circumstances that led to its approval. As such, these examples are afforded limited weight and do not alter my findings on this appeal.

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. The appeal is therefore dismissed.