Erection of a 1.5 storey building for a garage with home office with rooflights and external staircase
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Character & Appearance
Open Space
Heritage & Conservation
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 12 June 2026
by K Winnard LL.B Hons Solicitor
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 26 June 2026
Appeal Ref: 6009349
22 Moor End, Eaton Bray, Dunstable LU6 2HN
• 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 Adam Rix against the decision of Central Bedfordshire Council.
• The application Ref is CB/26/00114/FULL.
• The development proposed is the erection of a 1.5 storey building for a garage with home office with
rooflights and external staircase.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed. Planning permission is granted for the erection of a 1.5
storey building for a garage with home office with roof lights and external staircase
at 22 Moor End, Eaton Bray, Dunstable LU6 2HN in accordance with the terms of
the application, CB/26/00114/FULL and the plans submitted with it subject to the
following conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the
date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved plans: Site Location and Proposed Block Plan
Drawing No 2601071- PL01A, Proposed Plans and Elevations Drawing No
2601071-PL04B, and Proposed Site Plan Drawing No 2601071-PL05.
3) No development shall commence until details and samples of the materials to
be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby
permitted have been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details and samples.
4) No development shall take place until an archaeological Written Scheme of
Investigation (WSI) has been submitted and approved in writing by the local
planning authority.
The WSI shall contain the following components:
(i) A method statement for the investigation of any archaeological remains
that will be affected by the development
(ii) An outline strategy for post excavation assessment, analysis, archive
preparation and publication including details of the timetable for each stage
of the post-excavation works
The development should be carried out in full accordance with the approved
details within the WSI.
Appeal Decision 6009349
2
Procedural Matter
2. The Council changed the description of the development, and I have used this
description as it more accurately describes the proposal.
Main Issues
3. The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the proposal on the character and
appearance of the host dwelling and the area.
Reasons
4. 22 Moor End, the appeal property, is a detached dwelling, currently in the course of
renovation, set well back from the highway in a rural village. The appeal site is a L
shaped substantial plot with a rear garden area sited partly behind the garden of
the neighbouring property, No 26 Moor End. Beyond the immediate application site
area lies a large open grassed area which is in the control of the appellant. The
proposed 1.5 storey garage would be sited to the rear of the garden of the
neighbouring property and due to its set back behind that and the host dwelling
would not be visible from the streetscene.
5. The Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (CBDG) provides amongst other things that
garages should be of a size where they do not dominate the house, be subservient
and in proportion to the main house. The host dwelling itself is a substantial modern
detached dwelling. Notwithstanding that the garage would be relatively large for a
domestic outbuilding, its ridge height would be lower than that of the host dwelling
extending to approximately the same height as the eaves of the dwelling. Whilst not
constructed in matching materials to the host dwelling, they would be reflective of
other outbuildings found within the area. In the context of the scale of the main
dwelling, and the size of the garden area, the garage would not appear to be
disproportionate or unduly intrusive in the space.
6. The immediate area is one of detached dwellings in large plots and
outbuildings/garages of differing sizes are evident in neighbouring gardens. The
garage would only be visible from the private views of neighbouring properties.
Considering similar buildings in neighbouring gardens, the proposed garage would
be unlikely to be viewed as a discordant or incongruous feature. I am not
persuaded that in this context the proposed garage would be harmful to the
character and appearance of the site or the wider area.
7. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not be in conflict with Policy HQ1 of
the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan, which requires development proposals,
amongst other matters, to relate well to the existing local surroundings in terms of
size, scale and massing and appearance. Nor would it be in conflict with the CBDG,
details of which are given above or the National Planning Policy Framework which
provides for development to be sympathetic to local character.
Conditions
8. Conditions in respect of timescales and specifying the approved plans are
necessary as these provide certainty. A condition regarding the materials to be
used is also necessary to ensure that the appearance of the development is
satisfactory. A condition for a WSI is also required in the interests of ensuring that
recording of any potential heritage assets is made.
Appeal Decision 6009349
3
Conclusion
9. For the reasons given above having considered the development plan and all other
material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed as set out in
the formal decision notice above.
K Winnard
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.