Appeal 6007099

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a single storey double garage with solar panels and associated hardsurfacing at [site address] . The permission is granted in accordance with the terms of the application [name]/25/03502/FULL, dated 30 October 2025, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: GL-02 (site plan) and CBC001 (plans and elevations).

The building hereby permitted shall only be used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling.

The appellant indicates that the original description of development has changed. Therefore, the above description reflects the amended description shown on the appeal form.

I note that permitted development rights for extensions and outbuildings associated with the appeal property have been removed; and that there is an extant permission for a detached garage at the appeal site1. 1 [name]/2500600/FULL.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed garage on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling, [name], with regard to outlook.

[site address] is a recently built two storey detached dwelling positioned behind dwellings with frontages on the [site address] . The surrounding area is residential in character in a village setting, with open land on the opposite side of the road. The site is located in the South Bedfordshire Green Belt and the Eggington Conservation Area.

Policy HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2015-2035 (2021) states that development will be permitted provided there is not an unacceptable adverse impact upon nearby existing or permitted uses. Section 11 of the [name] advises that extensions should not have an overbearing effect on neighbours.

The appellant draws particular attention to the approved double garage and its effects compared to those of the appeal proposal. As such, I accept that the extant permission is material to this case and is a ‘fallback’ to the current proposal as the appellant may choose to implement it in the event of this appeal’s failure.

The proposed garage would be located adjacent to the rear boundary of the neighbouring dwelling, [name], which stands on lower ground than [site address] . The length and height of the garage means that it would readily be seen above the boundary fence in views from the rear windows and garden of the neighbouring property.

It would be framed by the larger built form of [site address] behind it, but would nonetheless be a substantive and prominent addition so close to the boundary. The pitched roof angled away from the boundary would mitigate some of the bulk that might otherwise be apparent from its height and size. However, due to its overall size and proximity it would have a harmful effect on the outlook from the neighbouring property and its garden.

The approved garage would also be positioned adjacent to [name] rear boundary, but the gable end would face the neighbouring property. Consequently, the built form facing the neighbouring dwelling would be three metres shorter than the side elevation of the current proposal. However, the approved garage is the same height as the appeal proposal and, therefore, the full height of the gable end would be directly next to the fence with no mitigation from the angled roof slope as with the proposed garage.

Moreover, the gable would be positioned directly opposite the patio doors to the rear of [name] and its principal outdoor seating area. As such, its full height would be particularly prominent from the main opening to the rear of [name] and from its garden. For these reasons, despite the shorter length of the approved garage, its perceived height, solidity and presence in this location would be more harmful than the effects of the current proposal. 2

Accordingly, for the reasons given, I conclude that the proposed garage would result in less harm than the fallback of the approved garage to the living conditions of the occupiers of [name], due to the effect on the outlook from the neighbouring dwelling and its garden. Consequently, while there is some conflict with Policy HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2015-2035, as described, this is outweighed by the effects of the fallback.

As well as being within the Eggington Conservation Area, the appeal site is also within the setting of a [name] listed building, known as Claridges, to the east of the site. I am, therefore, mindful of the statutory requirements for decision makers to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building; and that in exercising planning functions in conservation areas special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area2.

Due to the scale, appearance and layout of the proposed garage building in this residential setting, I am satisfied that it would not have a harmful effect on the setting or significance of the listed building and would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should succeed. I have imposed the standard time condition and, to ensure the proper implementation of the proposal, one requiring development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. I accept the Council’s suggestion that an additional condition is necessary to ensure that the garage is used only for its proper purpose, incidental to the residential use of [site address] .