Two storey rear and single storey side extensions with loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 August 2026 by Chris Couper BA (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012587 48 Golden Riddy, Linslade, Central Bedfordshire LU7 2RJ • 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 Ms Paula Michel against the decision of Central Bedfordshire Council. • The application Ref is CB/26/00524/FULL. • The development proposed is described as ‘two storey rear and single storey side extensions with loft conversion’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey rear and single storey side extensions with loft conversion at 48 Golden Riddy, Linslade, Central Bedfordshire LU7 2RJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref CB/26/00524/FULL, 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 plan: DD 25/094.1. 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) Prior to the development being brought into use, the parking layout shown on plan: DD 25/094.1 shall be implemented, and it shall thereafter be retained. Procedural Matter 2. The revised National Planning Policy Framework was published in August 2026 (‘the Framework’). Having regard to the submitted evidence, including the Council’s decision and its delegated report, and the main issue in this case, I am satisfied that its relevant policies are not substantially different from those that were in place at the time of the Council’s decision. It is that new version of the Framework that I refer to in my decision. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the area. Appeal Decision: 6012587 2 Reasons Character and appearance 4. The properties on Golden Riddy are laid out in a cohesive pattern of predominantly single storey semi-detached pairs, with matching hipped roofed front projections. In these regards, the host property and its attached neighbour at No 50 are typical of the streetscene. 5. However, within that broad theme there is some variety in terms of the buildings’ form and proportions as a result of extensions and alterations, as illustrated by the photographs at paragraph 2.6 of the appellant’s statement. Those alterations include side extensions and loft conversions with front facing dormers, along with more substantial alterations to the rear, including rectilinear dormers at Nos 40 and 42, and a large roof level projection at No 56, all of which are visible from the rear garden of No 48. The rear elevations of the buildings are therefore much less consistent compared to their front faces. 6. The proposal would include a side extension, which would replace the host’s attached garage. In contrast to the garage, that extension would be set in from the side boundary, and although its ridge would not be set down compared to the host, it would have a similar hipped roof form, along with a narrow front face, and it would be faced with matching materials. 7. Whilst the host’s bay window would be replaced by a door, the general form and proportions of its locally distinctive hipped roof front projection would be retained. Consequently, in streetscene views, the proposal would respect the form and appearance of the host and other buildings in Golden Riddy. 8. The proposed alterations to the rear would be more extensive, with an extension whose eaves and ridgeline would match the host, but which would include accommodation in the roofspace. However, as I have noted, the rear elevations of the properties in this part of Golden Riddy are much less cohesive than their front elevations. In the diverse context of the area, including roof level alterations to nearby houses, the depth, proportions and form of this extension would not appear out of place. 9. For these reasons, irrespective of the claimed fallback of works that could be carried out under permitted development rights, the scheme would not harm the character and appearance of the host property or the area. It would not therefore conflict with Policy HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2015 - 2035 (2021) which sets out a requirement for high quality design that responds positively to its context, and enhances or reinforces local distinctiveness, having regard to matters including size, scale, massing, materials and appearance. 10. Whilst not fully subservient to the host property, the extensions would assimilate reasonably well with it, and they would not appear incongruous. Consequently, the scheme would accord with the broad thrust of the advice at paragraph11.21.1 of the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023) that successful extensions are informed by their relationship with the existing property and should not dominate it. Appeal Decision: 6012587 3 11. Neither would it conflict with the Framework’s stance in Section 14 for proposals to respond to their context, and to create visually attractive, distinctive and characterful development which maintains a strong sense of place. Other matters 12. Structural matters relating to the construction of the proposed extensions, and party wall agreements, would ordinarily be covered under separate legal rights and legislation. Planning Conditions and Conclusion 13. Having regard to the Framework’s tests, as well as the standard time limit, in the interests of certainty, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plan. In the interests of good design, and in order to respect the character and appearance of the host property and the area, a condition is also necessary requiring that the extensions are faced with matching materials. 14. In the interests of the safety and convenience of highway users, and to ensure appropriate off-road parking, I have imposed the Council’s suggested condition requiring the provision of the parking facilities as depicted on the approved plan. 15. Finally, as structural matters and party wall agreements would ordinarily be covered under separate legal rights and legislation, conditions relating to them would not pass the Framework’s tests. 16. Having regard to all other matters raised, including representations by interested parties, the appeal is therefore allowed. Chris Couper INSPECTOR