Appeal 3263826

The appeal is dismissed.

The description I have used above is taken from the appeal form and the Council’s decision notice as that describes the development more comprehensively than the description given on the application form.

A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 20 July 2021, after the Council had determined the application. I am required to consider this appeal based on the current Framework. The policies of the Framework that are material to this appeal have not changed fundamentally. As such, it is not necessary to revert to the parties further.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with particular reference to outlook.

The appeal site is located at the corner of [address] and [address]. It comprises ground floor commercial premises with residential accommodation above. [address] has a main gable ended pitched roof that is mirrored by the attached dwelling at [address]. No 834 has been extended with a pitched roof rear dormer and a single storey flat roofed extension that wraps around the property to the side and rear. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, with a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings. Commercial properties with single storey extensions are also located at the corners of [address] and [address] to the south of the site. The site, by virtue of its corner location, is prominent in public views from both [address] and [address].

Whilst the flat roof extension of no 834 has somewhat reduced the symmetry of the property with no 832, a pleasing symmetry and balance, particularly when viewed from [address], remains. The proposed side extension would not be set back from the front elevation, nor would it be set down from the existing roof’s main ridge line. The lack of a design break or visual subordination between the existing property and the extension would harm the symmetry, architectural integrity and appearance of nos 834 and 832 when viewed together in the street scene. Furthermore, the lack of set back of the extension from [address] would result in an unduly dominant addition at first floor level in comparison to the set back of other buildings along the eastern side of [address]. These factors would cause material harm to the character and appearance of the area.

As such, the proposal would not accord with the Policies LLP1 and LLP25 of the adopted Local Luton Plan (2017) which taken together, require, amongst other things, development to be of high quality design that responds positively to the townscape and street scene. The proposal would also fail to accord with section 12 of the Framework which requires development to be sympathetic to local character.

The existing flat roofed ground floor extension to the rear of no 834 is proposed to be extended by 1.8 metres in width, and a first floor extension would project a depth of 3 metres to the rear. The single storey rear extension would be set off the common boundary with no 832 and would be separated from the adjoining property by a high closed boarded fence. As such, the single storey extension wouldn’t result in an unacceptable loss of light or outlook to the occupants of no 832.

The first floor extension would be set off the common boundary with no 832 so as to not breach a 45 degree angled line taken from the centre of the nearest first floor bedroom window of no 832. The limited projection of the first floor rear extension in combination with its set off from the common boundary is sufficient to ensure appropriate outlook and levels of light to the occupants of no 832.

As such, the proposal would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupants of no 832. I do not, in this specific regard, find conflict with either Policies LLP1 and LLP25 of the adopted Local Luton Plan (2017) or the Framework.

I have had regard to the other extensions in the locality drawn to my attention by the appellant. The extension at [address] is set down and set back from the original dwelling and [address] is a detached dwelling. They are, therefore, not comparable with the scheme before me. I also note that permission has previously been granted for a first floor extension at [address] but that the consent was not implemented. However, I do not have full details of that scheme and so cannot be certain that the circumstances are the same. In any case I have considered the appeal proposal on its own merits.

The development would not accord with the development plan for the area when taken as a whole, and there are no material considerations that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it.

For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.