The application proposed the erection of a 1.5-storey one-bedroom dwelling with parking and garden at the rear of 62 Ampthill Road, Shefford SG17 5BB, together with the demolition of an existing garage. The site occupies a backland position within the established residential curtilage, surrounded by the rear gardens of Nos. 62–52 Ampthill Road and the rear of properties on Hazel Close.
The client contacted Planning Voice concerned about a planning application to build a new dwelling directly behind their home, on the other side of their rear garden fence. The land in question had originally formed part of the client's garden but had been separated and retained by a previous owner when the property was sold approximately eight years earlier. The resulting plot was very small, and the client was troubled by the prospect of a new house being built in such close proximity. They noted that the applicant had submitted planning applications for the site on multiple occasions previously and appeared confident that approval was imminent, having completed flood risk assessments. The client sought professional guidance to determine whether there were valid planning grounds to challenge the proposal and to ensure their concerns were properly represented.
A fundamental concern with this application was the critically inadequate separation between the proposed dwelling and the existing property at No. 62. The distance from the rear of the existing house to the rear garden fence was approximately 10 metres — far less than the 22-metre separation distance commonly applied in residential settings to maintain privacy, outlook and mutual amenity between properties with facing rear windows and gardens. The cramped proximity, combined with the 1.5-storey height of the proposed building, would create a directly overbearing and overlooking relationship with No. 62 in particular, harming the amenity of both properties.
Policy HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan requires all development to demonstrate that there is no unacceptable adverse impact upon nearby existing uses, including impacts on amenity, privacy, noise and air quality. The proposed separation of 10 metres clearly failed this test.
Policy HQ8 specifically addresses backland development and states that proposals will be resisted where they are against the existing pattern and grain of development and where the character and appearance of the area would be harmed. The rear gardens of Nos. 62–52 Ampthill Road and No. 1A Hazel Close form a well-established and harmonious building line. The proposed infill dwelling would disrupt this coherent pattern, introducing a structure misaligned with the established layout and eroding the openness and distinctive character of the area.
The NPPF requires all development proposals to apply a sequential, risk-based approach to flood risk, taking into account all sources of flooding. The application site was in an area with identified surface water flood risk, and the proposed development — including the demolition of the existing garage and its replacement with a dwelling and garden area — would alter the drainage characteristics of the site. No adequate surface water drainage strategy had been submitted with the application, and the potential for increased run-off and ponding affecting neighbouring properties had not been assessed. This absence of drainage information was itself grounds for refusing or deferring the application pending adequate assessment.
The applicant withdrew the application following our objection. The combination of the critically inadequate 10-metre separation distance, the backland character harm, and the absence of flood risk and drainage assessment presented a set of policy failures that the application as submitted could not overcome. No revised scheme has been submitted.
Start with a free, no-obligation assessment before you commit to anything.
Get Free Assessment →