Conversion of extension of garage to form a self -contained annexe

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 April 2026 by Andrew Fulford BSc MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6006660 46 Braeburn Way, Cranfield, Central Bedfordshire MK43 0EH • 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 Mike Sheehan against the decision of Central Bedfordshire Council. • The application Ref is CB/25/03517/FULL. • The development proposed is the conversion of extension of garage to form a self -contained annexe. Insertion of front dormer and rear roof lights. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I observed on my site visit that the garage had been converted and dormer window and rooflight had been installed. The appeal will be determined on the basis of the submitted plans. 3. In September 2025, the Council granted planning permission1 for conversion of the detached garage to an annexe with a single storey rear and side extension, loft conversion with front rooflights, with conditions varied by a recent appeal decision2. Since the ground floor extension of the garage and use as a residential annexe have been previously approved, I have limited my consideration of the proposal to the effects of the front dormer and rear roof light. Main Issues 4. The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of 34 Braeburn Way with regards to privacy. Reasons Character and Appearance 5. The appeal site is located within a modern residential estate on the edge of the settlement of Cranfield. The majority of dwellings are detached two-storey 1 LPA ref: CB/25/01722/FULL 2 PINS ref: APP/P0240/W/25/3375192 Appeal Decision 6006660 2 properties that are either constructed in red brick or finished in a white render. Most properties have detached garages that are set-back behind the front elevation. Despite the dwellings being relatively large, rear gardens tend to be modest in size. There is a comparatively uniform appearance across the estate taking into account house designs, plot layouts and the gaps between properties. Flat roof dormer windows are not common within the street scene. 6. The appeal property is reflective of the design of surrounding properties, being a detached two-storey red brick property with a set-back detached garage. Although, it was evident on my site visit that a large flat roof dormer window had been inserted in the front elevation of the extended garage. The dormer is finished with grey cladding panels which whilst not characteristic of the surrounding properties, does match the cladding used in the garage extension. 7. The dormer window extends across the majority of the front roof plane and by virtue of its excessive scale appears as a bulky and obtrusive addition to the building’s most prominent elevation. The dormer is positioned off-centre within the roof plane and the window is also not positioned centrally within the dormer. In view of this arrangement, the dormer window appears as an unbalanced and incoherent addition. The harm arising from this discordant and incongruous feature is accentuated by the lack of flat roof dormers in the street scene. It is pertinent that paragraph 11.27.1 of the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide SPD states that dormer windows will only be permitted where they can be inserted without damaging the character and appearance of the dwelling and the wider area. 8. Given that the garage is set back behind the appeal property and located on a quiet residential street it is accepted that the development is not in a highly prominent location and normally would be viewed by occupants and visitors of neighbouring properties. However, a reduced level of public visibility does not avoid the need to achieve good design. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places are fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. 9. I conclude that the dormer window detracts from the character and appearance of the area. It is contrary to Policy HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan. Amongst other matters, this policy ensures that new developments achieve the highest possible quality and respond positively to their context. Living Conditions 10. The appeal property and surrounding dwellings are sited on relatively modest plots. Directly behind the appeal property is No 34 Braeburn Way which has windows to habitable rooms on its rear elevation at first floor level. These windows face the rear elevation of the appeal property. Given that there are windows on the rear elevation of the appeal property at first floor level there has always been a level of overlooking between the properties. However, the garage is located notably closer to the rear of No 34 than the host dwelling. 11. Whilst situated at an angle, the roof light is at eye level. On my site visit I stood within the first floor of the converted garage building and looked out of the rear facing rooflight. This provided direct views into rear first floor windows of No 34. Given the close proximity between the buildings the insertion of this rooflight has caused an unacceptable loss of privacy for the occupiers of No 34. Appeal Decision 6006660 3 12. It has been suggested that a condition requiring the roof light to be obscurely glazed and non-opening would prevent overlooking. However, given that I have found the front dormer to be unacceptable there is uncertainty regarding the future outlook from this room. In this context, any such condition could result in this habitable room being served only by an obscurely glazed roof light which would be unacceptable. 13. I conclude that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 34. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan. The policy seeks to ensure there is not an unacceptable adverse impact upon nearby existing or permitted uses, including impacts on amenity, privacy, noise or air quality. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Andrew Fulford INSPECTOR