Appeal 6002602

The appeal is dismissed.

During the appeal I requested further information to provide clarity on why the [name] (BNG) could not be secured by way of a condition. Following both parties responding, the Council has confirmed that BNG can be secured by condition. On this basis, reason for refusal number 2 has been overcome and is no longer a matter of conflict. Therefore, this is no longer an issue I will deal with in this appeal.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. • Whether the proposed development provides a suitable housing mix.

The National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) states at the start of chapter 12 that ‘The creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities’.

The existing dwelling is a detached dwelling with two detached dwellings being built to the rear of this property. The wider area has a very mixed character and appearance with the cemetery and Luton Sports Village contrasting with the mainly detached dwellings located along Butterfield Green Road. These detached dwellings from the evidence presented and my site visit are either set in very large or modest plots, though there is no specific architectural style that defines the street scene they all have modest or wide principal elevations.

The proposed dwellings would be in line with the adjacent dwelling of [address], as identified on the submitted drawings. The proposed dwellings would have narrow frontages and relatively limited spaces between the two proposed dwellings and the boundaries of the site.

The very narrow principal elevations of the proposed dwellings would not be in keeping with the character and appearance of the local area; including those dwellings fronting Butterfield Green Road or the wider fronted dwellings currently under construction to the rear. In addition, the narrow gaps between the built form of the dwellings and the plot boundaries further causes the proposal to be out of keeping with the local area.

While there is a mixed architectural appearance of the local area which limits the harm to the character and appearance of the area, the proposal does not sufficiently comply with any of the residential architectural examples found within the local area. Therefore, for the reasons above the proposal does not meet the standard in Chapter 12 of the Framework that requires high quality design that is sympathetic to the local area.

I therefore conclude on this issue that there is significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area. On this basis, the proposal does not accord with policies LLP1 and LLP25 of the Luton Local Plan 2011-2031 November 2017 (Local Plan) that seek high quality design that positively contributes to the character and appearance of an area. The Framework fully supports the Local Plan in these objectives.

The proposal would lead to the demolishing of the large 3 bedroom dwelling and would prevent its replacement with an approved 5 bedroom dwelling. The proposal would create two 3 bedroom dwellings.

The Council in its delegated report states that in the most recent Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) that 3 bedroom dwellings are a greatly needed form of housing within the borough. With a over 10,000 3 bedroom dwellings needed in 2019 and only 383 delivered up until 2017/2018. The SHLAA also identified the need of 2, 590 4+ dwellings with only 402 delivered by 2018. While the Council has not referred to any specific section(s) of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2017 (SHMA), figure 98 on page 119 again suggests that a far greater need for 3 bedroom market dwellings than 4+ dwellings. The SHMA only identifies a relatively small need for 5 bedroom market dwellings. Based on these figures, there is a substantially greater need for 3 bedroom dwellings within the district. Therefore, the appeal would provide a better housing mix for the borough.

On this issue I therefore conclude that the proposed development provides a suitable housing mix. On this basis the proposal accords with policies LLP1 and LLP15 of the Local Plan that seek to provide a housing growth and meets the housing needs set out in the SHMA.

A grade II listed building has been referred to on Butterfield Green Road. While this building is not identified it is likely to be the dwelling known as ‘[address]’. The Council has not raised any concerns on the impact on a heritage asset. Having regard to the duties contained in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I do not identify any likely harm to heritage assets or their setting from this proposal.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Council accepts that they cannot demonstrate a deliverable five year supply of housing land as required by Paragraph 78 of the Framework. Consequently, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework, which is a material consideration of significant weight, is engaged. It states that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. The proposal is not in accordance with the aforementioned policies of the Local Plan, with the harm to the character and appearance of the local area.

The benefit of the net increase of a single dwelling and as detailed above the addition of a 3 bed dwelling is needed within the district more so than a 5 bedroom dwelling, which further adds additional limited weight in favour of the proposal. The net increase of one dwelling in supporting both services and facilities within local community is limited. There are also likely limited short term economic benefits during the construction phase.

However, I have concluded that there would be significant harm on the rural character and appearance of the area.

The adverse impacts would, therefore, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.