Appeal 3269078

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Luton Borough Council. That application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The main issues are: • The effect upon the character and appearance of the area; and • The effect upon the living conditions of residential occupiers at No [site address] (No 54), having particular regard to light and outlook, and at No [address] (No 1), having particular regard to privacy.

The appeal site contains No 54, a semi-detached dwelling and an associated single garage intended to be demolished. It is comprised of a corner plot where [address] meets [address] (the Close). The area is typified by similarly designed semi-detached houses. These are often consistently spaced and tend to be setback similar distances from the highway. There is thus a formal and somewhat spacious residential character and appearance in place local to the site.

I do not dispute that relevant standards that relate to internal space, private amenity space and parking would be met. It is also the case that, in terms of its height, scale, depth and general appearance, the proposed dwelling would be reflective of other houses nearby. Nevertheless, the scheme would fail to respect the local pattern of development. Indeed, the new dwelling would be unsympathetically positioned directly to the side of a well-balanced pair of semi-detached dwellings and would appear as a discordant and over-intensive addition to the streetscene. This is even though articulation is intended to the flank elevation alongside some elements of new planting.

I acknowledge that No [address] (No 52), which occupies the corner plot situated opposite to the site, is served by a sizeable side extension. However, reflective of the area’s host character and appearance, No 52 continues to be read and experienced as a semi-detached property set in from its highway boundaries and upon spacious grounds. The proposed dwelling would instead be sited upon a sub-divided plot of unduly cramped dimensions.

My attention has been drawn to various planning decisions relating to corner plots situated on nearby [address] and thus in the general locality of the site. One of the schemes referred to is at No [address] (No 115), where a detached dwelling was allowed on appeal in 2016. As was apparent upon inspection, No 115 sits in a location where a less formal residential character and appearance is identifiable when compared to the appeal site’s immediate surroundings. Indeed, the 2016 Inspector noted the presence of occasional terraced rows and that the residential area had changed since it was first built.

One of these changes to the residential area took place at No [address] (No 71a) where planning permission for a detached two storey dwelling was first granted in June 2009. [name] 71a serves to illustrate the built variety that can be experienced to certain stretches of [address], it is sufficiently distanced from No 54 to have limited relevance to the process of identifying the character and appearance that exists local to the appeal site. Of greater relevance is the composition of the various dwellings that have a direct or close physical relationship to the site.

The above finding similarly applies to permissions for attached dwellings at Nos 70 and [address]. In any event, it is difficult to draw direct parallels between the permissions in place at those sites and the proposal for a detached dwelling that is now before me.

For the above reasons, the scheme would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal conflicts with Policies LLP1, LLP15 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 require all new development in the Borough to contribute to enhancing a sense of place and preserving or improving the character of the area and to not result in an over-intensification of the site.

No 54 is served by a part-glazed main entrance door and adjacent sidelight (the entrance door) to its flank elevation. This, I understand, serves an internal hallway as opposed to any internal space that could be correctly identified as a habitable room. As could be confirmed upon inspection, the entrance door’s glazed elements are comprised of patterned glass and thus realistically offer a restricted level of outlook for the property’s occupiers.

The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its positioning and proximity to No 54, would lead to a marked deduction in the level of natural light able to reach the entrance door. However, when factoring in the nature of the internal space served, these circumstances would not lead to any undue adverse effect being caused to the living conditions of No 54’s occupiers. Indeed, the levels of light and outlook obtainable via various glazed openings/elements in place to the front and rear of No 54 (and serving habitable areas) would not be impinged upon to any noticeable or harmful degree by the scheme.

It has been suggested by the Council that the occupiers of No 1 would experience loss of privacy and an increased perception of overlooking. However, it was apparent upon inspection that the facing flank wall of No 1 contains merely a patterned glass door and accompanying sidelight at ground floor. Furthermore, the proposed dwelling would be setback from No 1 beyond intervening garden spaces and alongside No 54, a two-storey property that already provides outlook from within the appeal site upon a similar orientation and from a comparable distance. In this context, no openings with the potential to lead to harmful overlooking would be provided.

For the above reasons, the scheme would not cause harm to the living conditions of adjoining occupiers at either No 54 or No 1, having particular regard to light, outlook and privacy. The proposal accords with Policy LLP25 of the Local Plan and with the Framework in so far as these policies set out that new housing shall be delivered whilst minimising overlooking and overshadowing/loss of light.

The proposal would deliver an additional housing unit in an urban location well-served by locally accessible facilities and services. Indeed, the Framework reaffirms the Government’s objectives of significantly boosting the supply of homes and of making an effective use of land. However, whilst I acknowledge the important role that windfall sites can play, one additional dwelling would not make a clear difference to the overall housing land supply position in the Borough. I thus attach limited weight to the proposal’s benefits in this sense.

The scheme would also create jobs during the construction phase and provide support to the local economy and local community facilities once occupied. However, these benefits also attract limited weight due to the modest scale of development under consideration.

The contributions associated with the delivery and subsequent occupation of a single dwelling would be modest and would not outweigh the considerable harm and associated policy conflicts that I have identified. The proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole, and material considerations do not lead me to a decision otherwise.

[name] have found that the proposal would have an acceptable effect upon the living conditions of adjoining occupiers, I have identified that considerable harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the area. That harm is the overriding consideration in this case. For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.