Rear two story extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 April 2026 by N Bowden BA(Hons) Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5th May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004738 18 Glebe Avenue, Arlesey, Central Bedfordshire SG15 6UP • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr David Borrington against the decision of Central Bedfordshire Council. • The application Ref is CB/25/03003/FULL. • The development proposed is a rear two story extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the extension on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The existing property comprises a semi-detached dwelling finished in pebbledash and render. It is set amongst a small estate of similarly designed homes. The originally designed houses have a shallow depth although many have been enlarged with single and two storey extensions, most commonly to the rear. The homes are arranged with reasonable spaces between them, allowing for views between the individual homes. 4. The appeal site has been similarly enlarged in the past with a two storey rear extension featuring a pitched roof and gabled end. More recently, a further two storey extension has been formed in the angle created by the original house and previous enlargement and it is this element that is the subject of the appeal. 5. This extension features a flat roof which is set above the eaves line of the remainder of the roof of the building. This fails to integrate satisfactorily with the existing building and does not reflect its form and features. The extension is visible in the public realm between the gap between the host property and 16 Glebe Avenue. In addition, it is visible and prominent from House Lane and along a small service road to the rear. 6. The design of the extension, with its flat roof and eaves height above that of the remainder of the house means that it appears as a jarring and incongruous element that is detrimental to the character and appearance of the property and the surrounding area. As such, the development fails to comply with policy HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2021, requirements of the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide and provisions of the National Planning Policy Appeal Decision 6004738 2 Framework. This is insofar as it would not relate well to the existing local surroundings and reinforce local distinctiveness. 7. I accept, and indeed have noted above, that many other properties have been extended in the area. Some of the extensions are clearly larger than that which has been constructed here. However, these extensions to other properties all have pitched roofs and eaves that align with the host dwellings. It is the lack of pitched roof and non-conforming eaves height which is the concern here. Conclusion 8. Due to the use of an incongruous flat roof and non-matching eaves, the extension does not integrate with the existing dwelling satisfactorily and, thus, the extension is harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. The appeal is dismissed. N Bowden INSPECTOR Appeal Decision 6004738 3