Two storey side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 May 2026 by Ellie Nutman BA (Hons) Decision by C Shearing BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008470 9 Watervale, Houghton Regis LU5 6FY • 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 Romesh Perera against the decision of Central Bedfordshire Council. • The application Ref is CB/26/00217/FULL. • The development proposed is a two storey side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and the host dwelling. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The wider surrounding area comprises contemporary properties, which vary widely in their form, scale, design and layout. No 9 Watervale is a two storey, detached property which benefits from a unique layout and orientation in contrast to other dwellings on the estate, as it is accessible via a long drive, and faces outward from the estate towards Bedford Road. The dwelling has a relatively simple form and therefore does not appear as a prominent feature in the street scene. 5. Whilst it is acknowledged that some aspects of the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (DG) may not be as directly applicable given the site’s atypical context, the DG nevertheless sets out overarching principles relevant to all proposals. In particular, it emphasises that extensions should be clearly subordinate additions rather than duplications of the original dwelling, and that they should respect the host building in terms of scale, form and hierarchy. 6. The DG further highlights that front extensions, especially those projecting beyond the established building line, should make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. It cautions that large front extensions are generally unacceptable due to their potential to harm the street scene. While the proposal is described as relating to a rear and side elevation, it nonetheless affects the Appeal Decision 6008470 2 southwest facing elevation which contains the central entrance and porch and is labelled on the drawings as the front elevation. 7. Although the dwelling has a unique layout and orientation, facing away from neighbouring properties, it remains highly visible in public views due to the footpath running along its frontage. By virtue of its design, the wrap-around extension would adjoin the existing gabled roof in an awkward and incongruous manner and does not read as a coherent or well-integrated addition. In combination with the height and bulk of the extension and its forward projection, the resulting form would appear visually discordant with the host dwelling, appearing unduly assertive and failing to appear subordinate to it. 8. Despite the varied character of the other properties nearby, given the extent of harm to the host property here and given the site’s elevated position and high visibility from the public footpath, it would appear harmful to the character and appearance of the area as a whole. 9. I conclude the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. Consequently, the proposal would fail to accord with Policy HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021) which requires that all developments are of the highest possible quality and respond positively to their context, ensuring that extensions take the opportunity to make sure that size, scale, massing, orientation, materials and appearance relate well to the existing local surroundings and reinforce local distinctiveness. 10. Whilst the decision notice makes reference to the Houghton Regis Neighbourhood Plan (2024), the policies quoted within the officer’s report relate to highway safety and parking which are not matters in dispute here. Conclusion and Recommendation 11. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Ellie Nutman APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 12. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. C Shearing INSPECTOR