Appeal 3267190

The appeal is dismissed.

The effect upon the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property (No 207B) makes up part of a parade of commercial units that runs [address] and forms part of the Bury Park District Centre. Indeed, the site is positioned upon a designated District Centre frontage and [address] (in the vicinity of the site) is typified by the presence of ground floor commercial units that are often set upon consistent front building lines.

Upon my inspection of the local area I observed the existence of various retractable/dismountable canopies or temporary structures that offer the opportunity for goods to be displayed beyond the frontages of commercial units during trading hours. Such an arrangement was in place at the appeal site, where a part-enclosed retractable canopy (the canopy) could be observed to jut out a not insignificant distance forward from the front of the building.

The proposed front extension would protrude forward by a distance comparable to that protruded by the canopy. However, it would instead be a permanent feature. Moreover, outside of trading hours, the front extension would take the form of a fully enclosed structure served by solid roller shutters to its front-facing elevation. Its visual impact would thus noticeably exceed that of the canopy.

A permanent single-storey extension (the existing extension) is in place to the front of nearby Nos [address] (Nos 201-203). It was granted permission1 in August 2014 and is of not dissimilar design to the proposed extension now before me. That permission, I note, was issued based on the structure being glazed to its frontage, as opposed to roller shuttered. 1 14/00339/FUL

As constructed, the existing extension represents a discordant and unduly prominent feature. Indeed, its projection forward into the streetscene and the solid roller-shuttered makeup of its frontage (as would be experienced outside of trading hours) lead me to find that the existing extension does not set a positive precedent for future development proposals nearby.

The front extension now under consideration would, when compared to the existing extension, project further forward and thus closer to the carriageway. In this context, even when acknowledging that its external finishes could be secured via condition, the proposed extension, being of permanent and solid specification, would represent an unsympathetic and visually intrusive addition to the parade.

Various planning permissions2 relating to front extensions to [address] properties (situated to the north west relative to the appeal site) have been brought to my attention. However, each is sufficiently distanced not to strongly influence the character and appearance of the site’s immediate surroundings. It was also evident upon my own inspection of these other sites that buildings in that general locality tended to be setback further from the carriageway when compared to the parade that contains the appeal property. For these reasons, the permissions referenced are of limited relevance to my considerations.

A 2020 appeal decision3 at No [address], which is located at the junction of [address] and [address], has been submitted. That scheme relates to a side extension (along [address]) as opposed to a front extension addressing [address]. Indeed, the Inspector in that case identified [address] as a side road and acknowledged the presence of neighbouring high-density terraced housing built up close to the pavement. Different circumstances apply in the case of the appeal now before me, which relates to a frontage that directly addresses one of the District Centre’s main thoroughfares. I thus find the 2020 appeal decision to be of limited relevance.

A 2016 appeal decision4 has also been submitted, which relates to a front extension at No [address]. That site is not closely located to the current appeal site and instead makes up part of a short standalone parade of commercial units. It is also evident that the extension, as permitted, was to be setback from the pavement that is in place to the front of that site. Thus, different site circumstances apply when the schemes at [address] and No 207B are compared, which leads me to find that the 2016 appeal decision is of little relevance here.

For the above reasons, the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. The scheme conflicts with Policies LLP1 and LLP25 of the Local Luton Plan 2011-2031 (adopted November 2017) (the Local Plan) and with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) (the Framework) in so far as these policies promote high quality design and require all new development in the Borough to contribute to enhancing a sense of place and preserving or improving the character of the area. 2 13/01628/FUL; 15/00514/FUL; 08/00790/FUL 3 APP/B0230/W/20/3255610 4 APP/B0230/Z/16/3147764

I have noted objections/concerns raised by interested parties with respect to matters including the effects upon pedestrian footpath movements, neighbouring levels of natural light and available views. However, as I have found the proposal to be unacceptable for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to explore these matters further here.

The proposal would, through the provision of additional permanent retail floor space, help deliver and reinforce a network of mixed-use District and Neighbourhood centres in compliance with the requirements of Policy LLP23 of the Local Plan. However, owing to the small extent of additional floor space under consideration, I attach limited weight to this benefit of the proposal. Indeed, the scheme’s benefits would not outweigh the significant harm that would be caused to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole, and material considerations do not lead me to a decision otherwise.

For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.