Appeal 3275277

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and the street scene and, • the effect on the living conditions of neighbours in respect of received light and outlook.

The appeal building is a semi-detached two storey dwelling located in a residential area. It is part of a row of similar dwellings which has regular gaps between the pairs of semi-detached buildings. In the majority of cases the driveways between the buildings lead to garages which are set back from the front of the dwellings.

The driveway to No.97 has gates, and a covered area in line with the front elevation of the building, which close views down its driveway. The proposal would include an undercroft towards the rear of the dwelling with accommodation above and extending across most of the rear of the dwelling. A flat roofed dormer would be added to the rear roof slope of the original dwelling and a velux window would be inserted in the front roof slope. Although the undercroft and rear extension would be set well back from the front elevation of the building, the proposed development would be visible from [address] through the gap between Nos.97 and 99.

I acknowledge that the appellant proposes to use external building materials to match those in the dwelling and that the flat roof section of the rear extension would not be easily seen. However, I find that the combination of the proposed dormer and two storey rear extension would significantly increase the size and scale of the dwelling at the rear. The proposal would therefore conflict with Luton Local Plan 2011-2031 policy LLP1 regarding the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and Local Plan policies LLP19 and LLP25 which seek, amongst other things, to ensure that the scale and mass of extensions are proportionate to the dwelling. It would also conflict with the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The other half of the semi-detached pair of buildings is No.[address]. The outlook from the ground floor rear elevation of No.95 is already restricted by the rear conservatory of No.97 and by the timber boundary fence between it and the rear garden of No.97.

The flank wall of the proposed rear extension to No.97 would be set slightly away from the rear garden boundary with No.95 and would have a part hipped/part flat roof. However, it would restrict the amount of daylight and sunlight received by the rear first floor window of No.95 and would have a harmful effect on the outlook from that window. This is because of the size, height, degree of projection and proximity of the two storey extension to the rear elevation of No.95.

The appellant has indicated that the proposal could be modified to reduce the width of the extension to 3 m rather than 3.5 m. The appellant adds that a recessed corner could be used to comply with the 45° rule. However, I must determine this appeal based upon the proposal and drawings refused by the Council.

I find that the proposal would cause significant harm to the living conditions of neighbours at No.[address] in respect of loss of received light and loss of outlook from their first floor rear window. The proposal would therefore conflict with Local Plan policy LLP19 which seeks to ensure that house extensions protect the amenity of neighbours. It would also conflict with guidance in the Framework regarding the creation of places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The appellant has drawn my attention to similar two storey flat roofed rear extensions in [address], including at No.81. Reference is also made to the single storey flat roofed extension to No.[address], opposite the appeal site. The Council has advised that it has no record of any planning permissions for flat roofed extensions above ground floor level in the area having been granted since 1994 and has made reference to the focus of development plans since that date on promoting good design standards. However, I note that permission was granted for a 2 storey rear and side extension with a pitched roof at [address] in 2019. Nevertheless, I have determined this appeal based upon the individual merits of the proposal and its particular site characteristics having regard to relevant development plan and national planning policies.

I acknowledge that the appellant had detailed pre-application discussions, including the submission of alternative scheme drawings, and considers that he was eventually treated unfairly. However, that is not a matter for my consideration as part of this appeal.

I have taken all other material considerations raised into account, including the lack of objections from neighbours. However, for the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.