| Informative Notes: | | 1
)The application site relates to a two-storey, detached dwelling located to the southern side of Ampthill Road within the settlement of Shefford. The dwelling is constructed of brickwork with pebbledash render at first floor level with white uPVC fenestration and a tile gable roof with front gable end. There is a hardstanding parking area to the front and side of the dwelling. To the rear of the property is an existing single-storey rear projection and attached to this is a flat roof garage adjacent to the eastern boundary. The site is relatively flat and is bounded by mixed boundary treatment. The site is adjacent to the residential property of 77A Ampthill Road to the east and 81 Ampthill Road to the west. The site lies partially within an area of archaeological potential (HER379).
Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing single-storey rear projection and garage and the erection of a single-storey side/rear extension that includes ancillary annexe accommodation. The extension would comprise of an open plan kitchen/living area for the property, together with a self-contained annexe with bedroom, living space and bathroom. The extension would measure approximately between 4.0m and 5.8m in depth and 13.05m in width, extending approximately 2.6m beyond the existing side elevation of the building. The extension would have a flat roof measuring approximately 3.0m in height. The extension is proposed to be constructed of matching brickwork with uPVC fenestration.
The proposed annexe would comprise of an open plan kitchen/living area for the main dwelling. It would also include an annexe with bedroom, living space with kitchenette and a bathroom which would be internally connected to the main dwelling. There is no specific Local Plan policy relating to annexes, however 11.30 of the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (CBDG) sets out guidance for annexes and dependent relatives accommodation. It states that if the purpose of the extension is to provide accommodation for a dependent relative, annexes will be permitted where the accommodation forms an extension to the main dwelling and is capable of being used as an integral part of the dwelling, or forms a separate outbuilding which is close to, well related to and has a clear functional link to the main dwelling. The CBDG also states that the scale of the annexe should not dominate the existing dwelling and should be proportionate and play a subservient role. The annexe should provide the minimum level of accommodation required to support the needs of the occupant.
The applicant states within their Planning Statement that the proposal complies with the principles of the CBDG by maintaining access to shared facilities while providing a dedicated and essential living space for the applicant's son that has individual and specialist needs. It is stated that the space has been designed to support their transition to greater independence while remaining in close proximity to family for care and assistance and that the annexe would offer a private and adapted environment that includes a suitably equipped bathroom that meets the occupant's specific needs. The applicant has also referred to the judgement in Uttlesford District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and White [1992]. The applicant explains that the judgement provides that where the use is ancillary to the main house it does not matter if it contains all the elements necessary to constitute a self-contained dwellinghouse. The judge considered that the conversion of a garage to an annexe had not resulted in a change of use, stating that even if the accommodation provided facilities for independent day-to-day living, it would not necessarily become a separate planning unit from the main dwelling and instead it would be a matter of fact and degree. The Inspector explained that the accommodation provided the facilities of a self-contained unit although it was intended to function as an annexe, with the occupant sharing her living activity in company with the family in the main dwelling. There was no reason in law why such accommodation should consequently become a separate planning unit from the main dwelling, the Inspector reported. The applicant states that having regard of established case law, the proposed annexe should be considered as ancillary to the main dwelling and they would be amenable to its use being conditioned as for ancillary purposes only.
In this case, the annexe would comprise of a double bedroom, an open plan living space with kitchenette and a separate bathroom. The annexe would include doors within the rear elevation providing access to the garden area which would be shared between the occupants of the annexe and main dwelling. The annexe would be functionally linked in the sense that it would share the parking and outdoor amenity area with the main property. There would be no separate external access from the front of the annexe as it would be accessed through the existing property, although it is noted that the internal door would be close to the separate side access of the dwelling. However, the annexe is considered to be proportionate to the main property and commensurate to its intended use, providing a suitable level of accommodation to support the needs of the occupant. Overall, subject to a condition securing its use as ancillary to the main dwelling, it is considered that the proposal would accord with the principles of the CBDG and would be acceptable in this regard.
The extension would be of a considerable scale, measuring up to 5.8m beyond the rear elevation of the property and spanning the full width of the dwelling and approximately 2.6m beyond the side of the property. However, as a whole, the extension is considered to read as a visually subservient and subordinate addition to the host dwelling and would be proportionate to the plot and so is considered acceptable in terms of its overall scale. In terms of design, the extension would be finished in matching brickwork with uPVC fenestration to complement the appearance of the existing property. Whilst large flat roof forms are generally not supported by the design principles set out in the CBDG, the majority of the extension would not be readily visible within the streetscene given its siting to the rear of the building and obscured from view by the built form of the main dwelling itself and surrounding properties. Views of the extension from public vantage points along Bramley Close would be limited given the high wall and fencing adjacent to Bramley Close. The extension would, however, project beyond the side of the property and so this part of the extension would be perceptible from Ampthill Road. Despite this, it is acknowledged that the extension would replace an existing flat roof garage in the same position and the extension would also be set well back from the frontage of the property. As such, the flat roof side extension is not considered to appear unduly prominent or incongruous when viewed within the surrounding street scene. Overall it is considered that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area, in accordance with Policy HQ1 of the CBLP, Section 12 of the NPPF and the CBDG.
The extension does not include any side elevation windows and therefore there would be no potential for overlooking in this respect. There would be a front elevation bathroom window within the extension, however, there are no windows within the ground floor side elevation of the adjacent neighbouring property (77A Ampthill Road) and so no harmful overlooking would arise. The rear elevation of the extension would contain a number of openings, however, views towards the private amenity spaces of the adjacent properties of 77A and 81 Ampthill Road would be adequately screened by boundary treatment surrounding the rear garden. There would be a number of rooflights within the flat roof of the extension, however, given their position within the flat roof, they would not provide any direct views towards neighbouring properties or their private amenity spaces. As such, the proposal is not considered to give rise to any harmful overlooking or a loss of privacy for any neighbouring occupiers.
The neighbouring property to the west, 81 Ampthill Road, has a single storey rear extension and the proposed extension would follow a similar rear building line to this extension. Given this, the proposal is not considered to result in any harmful loss of light to rear elevation openings within 81 Ampthill Road nor appear overbearing in this regard. It is noted that there are windows within the ground floor side elevation of 81 Ampthill Road opposite the proposed extension. These neighbouring windows appear to serve a kitchen and the windows are positioned in close proximity to the existing brick wall along the shared boundary and so it is not considered that the extension would result in any adverse loss of light to these windows. Neighbouring 77A Ampthill Road to the east of the site does not benefit from a rear extension and so is not set as far back as 81 Ampthill Road. The extension was originally proposed to measure up to 6.3m in depth. Given that 77A Ampthill Road is not set as far back as the application property, this would have resulted in the extension projecting over 7m beyond the rear of this neighbouring property. It was acknowledged that the extension would replace the existing garage building which is also currently located on the shared boundary and is 6.3m in depth. However, it was considered that the combination of the increased height of the extension compared to the existing garage (increasing from 2.1m to 3.0m), together with the extension spanning a greater distance along the boundary, that the extension could have an unneighbourly impact for occupiers of 77A Ampthill Road in terms of appearing overbearing. During the course of the application, the applicant has reduced the maximum depth of the extension by 0.5m to 5.8m. In light of the reduction made, and in recognition that the extension would not be as deep as the existing garage and that the neighbouring property is set off the shared boundary, it is not considered that the extension would result in an unacceptable overbearing impact, nor result in any harmful loss of light for this neighbouring property. All other surrounding properties are considered to be set a sufficient distance away so as to not experience any adverse loss of light or overbearing impact. Overall, the proposal is considered to have an acceptable neighbour amenity impact in accordance with Policy HQ1 of the CBLP, Section 12 of the NPPF and the CBDG.
The proposed annexe extension would accommodate an additional bedroom within the property. First floor plans of the existing property have not been provided and therefore the total number of bedrooms within the dwelling has not been shown. However, from the information available from when the property was recently marketed in March 2025, the dwelling is shown to be a four-bedroom property and so the proposal would result in an increase in the total number of bedrooms to five. 11.30.1 of the CBDG relates specifically to annexes and states that sufficient space to park vehicles for both parts of the dwelling in accordance with the parking standards set out in the Parking Standards for New Developments SPD should be provided. As set out in the Parking Standards for New Developments SPD, a five bedroom property should have at least 4 off street parking spaces. However, it is also stated that the first two must be provided on site and the third and fourth parking space are able to be provided as accessible land that could be converted to parking by the homeowner. In this case, the property benefits from an existing large hardstanding area to the front and side of the dwelling which would be able to provide sufficient off-street parking in accordance with current parking standards. It is noted that the side of the proposed extension would project further forward than the existing garage resulting in a loss of a small area of the hardstanding to the side of the dwelling, however, this would not adversely affect the parking provision on site and the site would be considered to remain to have sufficient parking provision. The proposal would also not affect existing access arrangements at the site. Overall, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of parking and highway safety, in accordance with Policies T2 and T3 of the CBLP, Section 9 of the NPPF and the Parking Standards for New Developments SPD.
Part of the site lies within an area of archaeological potential (HER379) which is known to have produced evidence for a high-status Roman farmstead. However, the Archaeologist advises that the scale of the proposal is such that it is unlikely to have a significant impact on any surviving archaeological remains and therefore considers there to be no archaeological constraint on this development. As such, the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact upon archaeological remains, in accordance with Policy HE1 of the CBLP and Section 16 of the NPPF.
There are a number of trees within and adjacent to the site, however, the Tree Officer considers that the proposed extension would be over an existing area of hardstanding and would have no adverse impact on the soft landscaping in the area. As such, the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact upon trees, in accordance with Policy EE4 of the CBLP and Section 15 of the NPPF.
Shefford Town Council have been consulted and support the proposal. A third party representation has also been received supporting the application. The comment states that they strongly advocate for the development of ancillary annexes as they can have a significant positive impact both for families and addressing broader national housing challenges. The comment states that annexes support multi-generational living, reduce the burden on social care systems and offer a more affordable and sustainable form of housing and that residential annexes, even with facilities for independent living, are functionally linked to the main dwelling rather than separate entities. This distinction is supported by legal precedents, such as Uttlesford v SoS (Environment & White) and R. (on the application of Fuller) v London Borough of Bromley EWHC 191 (Admin). These comments, including the relevant case law, have been considered and discussed in detail above and it has been found that the proposal would be an acceptable form of ancillary annexe accommodation.
Overall, the proposal is considered to accord with Policies HQ1, T2, T3, EE4 and HE1 of the CBLP, Sections 9, 12, 15 and 16 of the NPPF, the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide and the Parking Standards for New Developments SPD.The application site relates to a two-storey, detached dwelling located to the southern side of Ampthill Road within the settlement of Shefford. The dwelling is constructed of brickwork with pebbledash render at first floor level with white uPVC fenestration and a tile gable roof with front gable end. There is a hardstanding parking area to the front and side of the dwelling. To the rear of the property is an existing single-storey rear projection and attached to this is a flat roof garage adjacent to the eastern boundary. The site is relatively flat and is bounded by mixed boundary treatment. The site is adjacent to the residential property of 77A Ampthill Road to the east and 81 Ampthill Road to the west. The site lies partially within an area of archaeological potential (HER379).
Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing single-storey rear projection and garage and the erection of a single-storey side/rear extension that includes ancillary annexe accommodation. The extension would comprise of an open plan kitchen/living area for the property, together with a self-contained annexe with bedroom, living space and bathroom. The extension would measure approximately between 4.0m and 5.8m in depth and 13.05m in width, extending approximately 2.6m beyond the existing side elevation of the building. The extension would have a flat roof measuring approximately 3.0m in height. The extension is proposed to be constructed of matching brickwork with uPVC fenestration.
The proposed annexe would comprise of an open plan kitchen/living area for the main dwelling. It would also include an annexe with bedroom, living space with kitchenette and a bathroom which would be internally connected to the main dwelling. There is no specific Local Plan policy relating to annexes, however 11.30 of the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (CBDG) sets out guidance for annexes and dependent relatives accommodation. It states that if the purpose of the extension is to provide accommodation for a dependent relative, annexes will be permitted where the accommodation forms an extension to the main dwelling and is capable of being used as an integral part of the dwelling, or forms a separate outbuilding which is close to, well related to and has a clear functional link to the main dwelling. The CBDG also states that the scale of the annexe should not dominate the existing dwelling and should be proportionate and play a subservient role. The annexe should provide the minimum level of accommodation required to support the needs of the occupant.
The applicant states within their Planning Statement that the proposal complies with the principles of the CBDG by maintaining access to shared facilities while providing a dedicated and essential living space for the applicant's son that has individual and specialist needs. It is stated that the space has been designed to support their transition to greater independence while remaining in close proximity to family for care and assistance and that the annexe would offer a private and adapted environment that includes a suitably equipped bathroom that meets the occupant's specific needs. The applicant has also referred to the judgement in Uttlesford District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and White [1992]. The applicant explains that the judgement provides that where the use is ancillary to the main house it does not matter if it contains all the elements necessary to constitute a self-contained dwellinghouse. The judge considered that the conversion of a garage to an annexe had not resulted in a change of use, stating that even if the accommodation provided facilities for independent day-to-day living, it would not necessarily become a separate planning unit from the main dwelling and instead it would be a matter of fact and degree. The Inspector explained that the accommodation provided the facilities of a self-contained unit although it was intended to function as an annexe, with the occupant sharing her living activity in company with the family in the main dwelling. There was no reason in law why such accommodation should consequently become a separate planning unit from the main dwelling, the Inspector reported. The applicant states that having regard of established case law, the proposed annexe should be considered as ancillary to the main dwelling and they would be amenable to its use being conditioned as for ancillary purposes only.
In this case, the annexe would comprise of a double bedroom, an open plan living space with kitchenette and a separate bathroom. The annexe would include doors within the rear elevation providing access to the garden area which would be shared between the occupants of the annexe and main dwelling. The annexe would be functionally linked in the sense that it would share the parking and outdoor amenity area with the main property. There would be no separate external access from the front of the annexe as it would be accessed through the existing property, although it is noted that the internal door would be close to the separate side access of the dwelling. However, the annexe is considered to be proportionate to the main property and commensurate to its intended use, providing a suitable level of accommodation to support the needs of the occupant. Overall, subject to a condition securing its use as ancillary to the main dwelling, it is considered that the proposal would accord with the principles of the CBDG and would be acceptable in this regard.
The extension would be of a considerable scale, measuring up to 5.8m beyond the rear elevation of the property and spanning the full width of the dwelling and approximately 2.6m beyond the side of the property. However, as a whole, the extension is considered to read as a visually subservient and subordinate addition to the host dwelling and would be proportionate to the plot and so is considered acceptable in terms of its overall scale. In terms of design, the extension would be finished in matching brickwork with uPVC fenestration to complement the appearance of the existing property. Whilst large flat roof forms are generally not supported by the design principles set out in the CBDG, the majority of the extension would not be readily visible within the streetscene given its siting to the rear of the building and obscured from view by the built form of the main dwelling itself and surrounding properties. Views of the extension from public vantage points along Bramley Close would be limited given the high wall and fencing adjacent to Bramley Close. The extension would, however, project beyond the side of the property and so this part of the extension would be perceptible from Ampthill Road. Despite this, it is acknowledged that the extension would replace an existing flat roof garage in the same position and the extension would also be set well back from the frontage of the property. As such, the flat roof side extension is not considered to appear unduly prominent or incongruous when viewed within the surrounding street scene. Overall it is considered that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area, in accordance with Policy HQ1 of the CBLP, Section 12 of the NPPF and the CBDG.
The extension does not include any side elevation windows and therefore there would be no potential for overlooking in this respect. There would be a front elevation bathroom window within the extension, however, there are no windows within the ground floor side elevation of the adjacent neighbouring property (77A Ampthill Road) and so no harmful overlooking would arise. The rear elevation of the extension would contain a number of openings, however, views towards the private amenity spaces of the adjacent properties of 77A and 81 Ampthill Road would be adequately screened by boundary treatment surrounding the rear garden. There would be a number of rooflights within the flat roof of the extension, however, given their position within the flat roof, they would not provide any direct views towards neighbouring properties or their private amenity spaces. As such, the proposal is not considered to give rise to any harmful overlooking or a loss of privacy for any neighbouring occupiers.
The neighbouring property to the west, 81 Ampthill Road, has a single storey rear extension and the proposed extension would follow a similar rear building line to this extension. Given this, the proposal is not considered to result in any harmful loss of light to rear elevation openings within 81 Ampthill Road nor appear overbearing in this regard. It is noted that there are windows within the ground floor side elevation of 81 Ampthill Road opposite the proposed extension. These neighbouring windows appear to serve a kitchen and the windows are positioned in close proximity to the existing brick wall along the shared boundary and so it is not considered that the extension would result in any adverse loss of light to these windows. Neighbouring 77A Ampthill Road to the east of the site does not benefit from a rear extension and so is not set as far back as 81 Ampthill Road. The extension was originally proposed to measure up to 6.3m in depth. Given that 77A Ampthill Road is not set as far back as the application property, this would have resulted in the extension projecting over 7m beyond the rear of this neighbouring property. It was acknowledged that the extension would replace the existing garage building which is also currently located on the shared boundary and is 6.3m in depth. However, it was considered that the combination of the increased height of the extension compared to the existing garage (increasing from 2.1m to 3.0m), together with the extension spanning a greater distance along the boundary, that the extension could have an unneighbourly impact for occupiers of 77A Ampthill Road in terms of appearing overbearing. During the course of the application, the applicant has reduced the maximum depth of the extension by 0.5m to 5.8m. In light of the reduction made, and in recognition that the extension would not be as deep as the existing garage and that the neighbouring property is set off the shared boundary, it is not considered that the extension would result in an unacceptable overbearing impact, nor result in any harmful loss of light for this neighbouring property. All other surrounding properties are considered to be set a sufficient distance away so as to not experience any adverse loss of light or overbearing impact. Overall, the proposal is considered to have an acceptable neighbour amenity impact in accordance with Policy HQ1 of the CBLP, Section 12 of the NPPF and the CBDG.
The proposed annexe extension would accommodate an additional bedroom within the property. First floor plans of the existing property have not been provided and therefore the total number of bedrooms within the dwelling has not been shown. However, from the information available from when the property was recently marketed in March 2025, the dwelling is shown to be a four-bedroom property and so the proposal would result in an increase in the total number of bedrooms to five. 11.30.1 of the CBDG relates specifically to annexes and states that sufficient space to park vehicles for both parts of the dwelling in accordance with the parking standards set out in the Parking Standards for New Developments SPD should be provided. As set out in the Parking Standards for New Developments SPD, a five bedroom property should have at least 4 off street parking spaces. However, it is also stated that the first two must be provided on site and the third and fourth parking space are able to be provided as accessible land that could be converted to parking by the homeowner. In this case, the property benefits from an existing large hardstanding area to the front and side of the dwelling which would be able to provide sufficient off-street parking in accordance with current parking standards. It is noted that the side of the proposed extension would project further forward than the existing garage resulting in a loss of a small area of the hardstanding to the side of the dwelling, however, this would not adversely affect the parking provision on site and the site would be considered to remain to have sufficient parking provision. The proposal would also not affect existing access arrangements at the site. Overall, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of parking and highway safety, in accordance with Policies T2 and T3 of the CBLP, Section 9 of the NPPF and the Parking Standards for New Developments SPD.
Part of the site lies within an area of archaeological potential (HER379) which is known to have produced evidence for a high-status Roman farmstead. However, the Archaeologist advises that the scale of the proposal is such that it is unlikely to have a significant impact on any surviving archaeological remains and therefore considers there to be no archaeological constraint on this development. As such, the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact upon archaeological remains, in accordance with Policy HE1 of the CBLP and Section 16 of the NPPF.
There are a number of trees within and adjacent to the site, however, the Tree Officer considers that the proposed extension would be over an existing area of hardstanding and would have no adverse impact on the soft landscaping in the area. As such, the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact upon trees, in accordance with Policy EE4 of the CBLP and Section 15 of the NPPF.
Shefford Town Council have been consulted and support the proposal. A third party representation has also been received supporting the application. The comment states that they strongly advocate for the development of ancillary annexes as they can have a significant positive impact both for families and addressing broader national housing challenges. The comment states that annexes support multi-generational living, reduce the burden on social care systems and offer a more affordable and sustainable form of housing and that residential annexes, even with facilities for independent living, are functionally linked to the main dwelling rather than separate entities. This distinction is supported by legal precedents, such as Uttlesford v SoS (Environment & White) and R. (on the application of Fuller) v London Borough of Bromley EWHC 191 (Admin). These comments, including the relevant case law, have been considered and discussed in detail above and it has been found that the proposal would be an acceptable form of ancillary annexe accommodation.
Overall, the proposal is considered to accord with Policies HQ1, T2, T3, EE4 and HE1 of the CBLP, Sections 9, 12, 15 and 16 of the NPPF, the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide and the Parking Standards for New Developments SPD. |
| 2
)Based on information submitted there are no known issues raised in the context of Human Rights / The Equalities Act 2010 and as such there would be no relevant implications.Based on information submitted there are no known issues raised in the context of Human Rights / The Equalities Act 2010 and as such there would be no relevant implications. |
| 3
)GDP Policy Informative Central Beds Local Plan
In accordance with Article 35 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the reason for any condition above relates to the Policies as referred to in the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).GDP Policy Informative Central Beds Local Plan
In accordance with Article 35 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the reason for any condition above relates to the Policies as referred to in the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). |
| 4
)This permission relates only to that required under the Town & Country Planning Acts and does not include any consent or approval under any other enactment or under the Building Regulations. Any other consent or approval which is necessary must be obtained from the appropriate authority.This permission relates only to that required under the Town & Country Planning Acts and does not include any consent or approval under any other enactment or under the Building Regulations. Any other consent or approval which is necessary must be obtained from the appropriate authority. |
| 5
)Please note that the unnumbered drawings submitted in connection with this application have been given unique numbers by the Local Planning Authority. The numbers can be sourced by examining the plans on the View a Planning Application pages of the Councils website www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk.Please note that the unnumbered drawings submitted in connection with this application have been given unique numbers by the Local Planning Authority. The numbers can be sourced by examining the plans on the View a Planning Application pages of the Councils website www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk. |
| 6
)Will a new extension affect your Council Tax Charge?
The rate of Council Tax you pay depends on which valuation band your home is placed in. This is determined by the market value of your home as at 1 April 1991.
Your property's Council Tax band may change if the property is extended. The Council Tax band will only change when a relevant transaction takes place. For example, if you sell your property after extending it, the new owner may have to pay a higher band of Council Tax.
If however you add an annexe to your property, the Valuation Office Agency may decide that the annexe should be banded separately for Council Tax. If this happens, you will have to start paying Council Tax for the annexe as soon as it is completed. If the annexe is occupied by a relative of the residents of the main dwelling, it may qualify for a Council Tax discount or exemption. Contact the Council for advice on 0300 300 8306.
The website link is:
https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/council-tax-bandsWill a new extension affect your Council Tax Charge?
The rate of Council Tax you pay depends on which valuation band your home is placed in. This is determined by the market value of your home as at 1 April 1991.
Your property's Council Tax band may change if the property is extended. The Council Tax band will only change when a relevant transaction takes place. For example, if you sell your property after extending it, the new owner may have to pay a higher band of Council Tax.
If however you add an annexe to your property, the Valuation Office Agency may decide that the annexe should be banded separately for Council Tax. If this happens, you will have to start paying Council Tax for the annexe as soon as it is completed. If the annexe is occupied by a relative of the residents of the main dwelling, it may qualify for a Council Tax discount or exemption. Contact the Council for advice on 0300 300 8306.
The website link is:
https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/council-tax-bands |
|
|---|