Two storey side and single storey rear extension, permeable paving, PV panels and an air source heat pump

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 July 2026 by K E Down MA(Oxon) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010996 4 Lancaster Road, Shortstown, Bedford, MK42 0UA • 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 Tomasz Prusek against the decision of Bedford Borough Council. • The application Ref is 26/00077/FUL. • The development proposed is a two storey side and single storey rear extension, permeable paving, PV panels and an air source heat pump. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. There is one main issue which is the effect of the proposed two storey side extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the semi-detached pair, the street scene and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal dwelling is a semi-detached house in a street of other semi-detached dwellings of a similar scale. The appeal dwelling and its neighbours on the southern side of Lancaster Road are of a different design to those on the north side and laid out in what appears to be a conscious staggered pattern with wide gaps between properties and open frontages, forming a noticeable group. This spacious layout contributes to the pleasant open character of the street. It is understood that the group forms part of the purpose-built workers village known as Shortstown, constructed between 1916 and 1919. 4. The appeal dwelling sits forward of its non-attached neighbour, No 6, and part of its side boundary is next to the open frontage of this dwelling. The attached dwelling, No 2, lies adjacent to a wide, open, corner of green space. This house has an existing two storey side extension very similar to the one now proposed. The proposed two storey side extension would be about half the width of the host dwelling and would be set back from the front elevation and down from the main ridge, thus maintaining subservience. It would also provide balance with the semi- detached pair. In itself, I find the scale and design of the proposed extension acceptable. 5. However, it would be built up to the boundary with No 6. Although some of the side elevation would be seen against the open front garden at No 6, over half of the side elevation would sit between the appeal dwelling and its neighbour, noticeably Appeal Decision Ref: 6010996 2 reducing the gap between the two. Notwithstanding that a large gap would remain, this would diminish the spacious layout of the group. Moreover, owing to the forward position of the appeal dwelling, the two storey side extension would be prominent in the street scene. 6. The Council’s supplementary design guidance, Residential Extensions, New Dwellings and Small Infill Developments (SDG), 2000, sets out in Design Code E3 that for two storey side extensions, a minimum gap of 1.5m should be maintained to the boundary. It goes on to say that in some areas where there is a need to preserve the existing pattern and open quality of external spaces, the distance from the boundary may need to be increased. This guidance should be applied flexibly. In view of the staggered building line and open frontage at No 6, the effect of the proposed extension on the gap would be tempered and I am not convinced that in this case a wider gap would be necessary. Nevertheless, owing to its exposed location and since much of the extension would lie between the host dwelling and No 6, the filling of the entire gap between the side elevation of the appeal dwelling and its side boundary would result in a cramped and disproportionate form of development that was conspicuous and overbearing in the street scene, detracting from its spacious character and appearance. 7. The appellant suggests that the wide side garden at No 6 would compensate for the lack of a retained gap at the appeal site. However, this wider garden, together with the gap to the side of No 4 forms part of the planned layout in the vicinity of the appeal dwelling and contributes positively to its character. It would not therefore compensate for the lack of any gap at the appeal site. It is also suggested that the extension at No 2 amounts to a precedent, but the context of this extension is materially different, with the wide corner of public open space maintaining the characteristic openness. 8. The appellant argues that the surrounding area is varied and has evolved over time though extensions and alterations. In particular, my attention is drawn to a two storey side extension at No 15 and single storey extensions elsewhere. However, whilst there has been change, this has been in keeping with the street scene. No 15, on the north side of the road, is in a row of dwellings following a common building line but with different gap spacings between. Therefore, the reduced gap between No 15 and its neighbour remains similar to other original gaps in the same row. Moreover, single storey side extensions have a lesser effect on spaciousness, particularly in the context of the appeal dwelling and other dwellings on the south side of the street, where original high walls to the side of dwellings are characteristic. 9. I accept that the appeal dwelling does not lie within a CA or other designated area and that the proposed extension would provide additional family accommodation. Nevertheless, these matters would not provide a justification for allowing the proposed two storey extension. 10. It is concluded on the main issue that, despite its design compatibility with the host dwelling, the proposed two storey side extension would have a materially detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the street scene and the surrounding area. In consequence, it would conflict with Polices 28S, 29, and 30 of the Bedford Borough Local Plan, 2030, adopted 2020. Taken together and amongst other things these expect new development to be of a high quality that has a positive relationship with the surrounding area, respecting, integrating well Appeal Decision Ref: 6010996 3 with and complementing the traditional character of the area. In particular, new development should reflect the context, prevailing pattern and scale of development and protect and enhance the street scene in respect of, amongst other things, scale, density, massing and layout. 11. The Council raises no objection to the single storey rear extension, the front porch extension, the permeable paving or the solar PV panels. I agree they would be acceptable. A third party considers that the porch would be prominent and poorly related to the host dwelling, but I agree with the Council that it would be a modest and acceptable structure and that a similar porch could be provided under permitted development rights. I also agree that, subject to securing suitable noise levels, the proposed air source heat pump would be acceptable. Nevertheless, this would not alter or outweigh the harm that would be caused to the character and appearance of the area by the two storey side extension. 12. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. K E Down INSPECTOR