Appeal 6004162

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

No [site address] (No 53) is a semi-detached residential property that benefits from a hipped roof design commensurate with its adjoining neighbour and other properties in its surroundings. No 53 has benefitted from a variety of rear extensions, the single storey elements of which are flat roofed. However, the existing modest two storey extension benefits from a hipped roof design commensurate with that of the main part of the property. Similar extension arrangements exist on other properties in the immediate surroundings.

The proposal includes a first-floor addition to the rear of the property, above parts of the existing single storey extensions, which would stretch across most of the building’s width and would be of flat roofed design.

Although the proposed extension would not be easily visible from the street scene, it would be observed from neighbouring properties and their rear gardens. As a result, it would be conspicuous given its height above the plot boundaries in comparison to the more discrete single storey extensions.

A flat roofed structure at first floor level, stretching across the width of the property, would appear bulky, incongruous and out-of-keeping with other rear extensions in the immediate surroundings that define its context. Furthermore, the flat roof design would fail to assimilate itself with the existing hipped roof design of the original dwelling, which is a positive design feature that provides a connection with its attached neighbour. The proposed extension would also not be subordinate or sympathetic to its host owing to the height of the eaves being similar to those of the original property.

It is noted that the proposal would be constructed of materials to match those used in the construction of the existing property and that this would provide some unity. However, this does not outweigh the concerns articulated above.

For the above reasons, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area, contrary to Policies LLP1, LLP19 and LLP25 of the Luton Local Plan (2017), which, amongst other things, require dwelling extensions to be of a scale, mass, layout and design that is consistent with and proportionate to the principal dwelling, surrounding properties and the character of the area.

It is acknowledged that the proposed extension would provide additional internal space for the appellant’s family. However, this is a personal consideration, and planning is generally concerned with matters in the public interest. Furthermore, the absence of harm to neighbouring residents in terms of their living conditions does not amount to a benefit in support of the proposal but neutral in the planning balance.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be made other than in accordance with it. Thus, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.