To extend existing driveway and widen vehicle crossover

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 September 2026 by K E Down MA(Oxon) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:15 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011707 17 De Parys Avenue, Bedford, MK40 2TX • 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 Oliver Wyncoll against the decision of Bedford Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/02513/FUL. • The development proposed is to extend existing driveway and widen vehicle crossover. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to extend the existing driveway and widen the vehicle crossover at 17 De Parys Avenue, Bedford, MK40 2TX in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02513/FUL, 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: Location plans (2No), unreferenced layout plan (Council ref. V04) 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the development hereby permitted shall be as specified on the approved unreferenced layout plan (Council ref. V04). 4) Before the development hereby approved is brought into use a triangle pedestrian visibility splay of 1.8m by 1.8m shall be provided on the north side of the vehicular access within the frontage of 17 De Parys Avenue and adjacent to the rear edge of the footway. The visibility splay shall be retained thereafter with all parts of the splay kept free of obstructions over a height of 0.7m above ground level. Preliminary Matter 2. Since the application was determined and the appeal made, a revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has been published in August 2026. Although changes have been made, including to historic environment policy, those that are relevant to this decision have not materially changed. I am therefore satisfied that no party will be prejudiced by my having regard to the latest version of the NPPF in reaching my decision. Appeal Decision Ref: 6011707 2 Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of De Parys Avenue, including the Bedford Conservation Area. Reasons 4. De Parys Avenue lies within the Bedford Conservation Area (CA), a designated heritage asset, which is characterised by the historic buildings making up the original core of the town. Policy HE6 of the NPPF makes clear that, when considering the effect of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, substantial weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. 5. De Parys Avenue is a wide and impressive tree lined street flanked by mainly large, late Victorian houses set behind boundaries comprising a variety of materials including railings and wooden fencing as well as original walls, some backed by hedges. In a number of cases, including at and in the vicinity of the appeal dwelling, boundary features have been partly or completely removed. The footway and carriageway are separated by wide grass verges in which the mature trees are planted, giving the street a green and leafy character. Its significance derives primarily from its architecture and history. 6. A significant number of properties have off-street parking accessed via verge crossings, many long standing, with associated dropped kerbs. Some of these serve more than one dwelling. At others there are narrower verge crossings serving pedestrian entrances and providing a paved access from the dwelling to the carriageway. At many dwellings on wider plots there are original driveways and/or more modern garages to the side of the dwelling. In a noticeable number of cases, particularly on the same side of the street as the appeal dwelling, frontages at these and some other dwellings have been paved to provide space for additional car parking. Overall, visible on-site frontage, parking and verge crossings are regular features in the street scene. 7. The Bedford Conservation Area Character Appraisal (BCACA), 2008, identifies the harmful effect of the loss of enclosure and of frontage parking, and the risk posed by pressure for further similar development. However, whilst this has, over time, altered the original appearance of the street, it is now sufficiently frequent to form part of the character of the area, particularly on the east side of the road. 8. The appeal dwelling is a large, three storey semi-detached house, identified in the BCACA as being of positive merit to the CA. Part of the front boundary wall has been removed and the frontage paved. It is currently used for the parking of two vehicles with access from the highway gained via the drop kerb and verge crossing at No 15. Vehicles cut across the corner of the verge and the footway to enter No 17. 9. The submitted evidence sets out that there have been three previous applications for similar works at the dwelling with the most recent refusal being in 2014. In 2011 an appeal (Ref: APP/K0235/D/11/2155155) was dismissed. However, at that time the boundary wall at the appeal site had not been removed and the frontage was not paved. It was the effect on the dwelling of implementing these works that appears to have been of greatest concern. Moreover, weight was attached to the Council’s intention, set out in the Bedford Conservation Area Management Plan, 2011, to introduce an Article 4(2) Direction to protect boundary walls and other Appeal Decision Ref: 6011707 3 means of enclosure. That Direction has not been introduced. The Council’s evidence sets out that by 2015 the boundary wall at No 17 had been partly demolished, the frontage had been paved and that is has been used for vehicle parking since that time. The circumstances are thus materially different from those at the time of the earlier applications and appeal. 10. The proposal before me is for the widening by some 1.5m of the existing tarmac verge crossing serving No 15, the associated widening of the dropped kerb and the provision of a tarmac vehicle crossover for the footway, with associated pedestrian visibility splay. The widening would not be close to any tree and so no harm to trees is likely. The works would thus be limited. In addition, since no new verge crossing would be created, allowing the modest widening proposed would not provide a precedent for other new crossings nearby. Overall, there would be a small but acceptable change to the appearance of the street, resulting mainly from the loss of the strip of verge and the new tarmac footway crossing. 11. NPPF Policy HE9 which relates specifically to conservation areas states that the assessment of impact should take into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the CA as a whole. In this case, the kerbs, verges and footways in De Parys Avenue make a positive contribution to the setting of the buildings and the character of the area as a whole. Drop kerbs and verge/footway crossings also form part of that character, with the pattern between verge and verge crossing contributing to the character and appearance. 12. I consider that the small loss of kerb and verge would not materially alter the relative balance between verge and verge crossing and although the tarmac footway crossing would be wider and more noticeable, this would reflect other similar crossings in the vicinity. Overall, the proposed development would therefore have a neutral effect on the significance of the CA as a designated heritage asset, which would thus be conserved. 13. The Council and the Conservation Officer raise concerns that formalising the frontage parking could lead to the removal of more of the front boundary wall at No 17 under permitted development rights, in particular in order to accommodate two vehicles. However, frontage parking has taken place at the site for over ten years and I saw that the area can already accommodate two vehicles. This concern therefore appears to be unfounded. 14. The Highways Officer states that a section of hedge behind the wall some 1.8m long would need to be removed in order to provide a pedestrian visibility splay. Many frontages in the street do not have hedges. Moreover, the Highways Officer has proposed a slightly higher than usual restriction of 0.7m on obstructions within the visibility splay to preserve the remaining wall which would not be disturbed. I therefore consider that the visibility splay would have a neutral effect on the character and appearance of the street and the CA. 15. Overall, it is concluded that the proposed development would have no materially detrimental effect on the character or appearance of De Parys Avenue and would preserve the character, appearance and significance of the Bedford CA. In consequence, it would comply with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Policy 41S of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030, adopted 2020, and Policies HE5, HE6 and HE9 of the NPPF, 2026. Taken together and amongst other things, these expect development in conservation areas to Appeal Decision Ref: 6011707 4 preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area and conserve the significance of the heritage asset. 16. The appellant points out that the proposed development would provide a safe means of access and I agree that the provision of a pedestrian visibility splay and formal footway crossing would enhance safety for pedestrians by improving visibility and alerting them to potential vehicle movements. This adds further weight in favour of the development. 17. Turning to conditions, in addition to the statutory commencement condition, conditions requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and specifically in the materials specified on those plans are necessary. This is to provide certainty and to protect the character and appearance of the area, including the CA. In addition, a condition is necessary to ensure that the proposed pedestrian visibility splay is provided at the entrance to the appeal site before the widened vehicular access is brought into use and thereafter retained. This is needed in the interests of highway and pedestrian safety. 18. However, conditions suggested by the Highway Officer requiring the development to be completed within 3 months of the date of the permission and requiring the surfacing of the frontage at the appeal site to be approved are not necessary or reasonable because a developer cannot be compelled to complete works within a specific timescale and the frontage at No 17 is already paved. 19. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. K E Down INSPECTOR