Appeal 6004468

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the Council’s decision notice, since it describes the proposal in its entirety.

Two drawings of proposed front elevations were submitted with the appeal. The main parties agree that the appeal decision should be based on drawing 6685-21 ‘Frontage’ dated 23 September 2025.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and the Town Centre Conservation Area.

As the site is in the Town Centre Conservation Area (CA) the provisions of Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 are applicable, which require special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. Based on the findings of my site visit, the significance of the CA is derived from its long commercial streets, where buildings of predominantly traditional character tightly enclose the roads. The wider CA has a vibrant character, arising from its pedestrianised spaces and commercial activity, although [address] has a quieter nature, being part of the secondary frontage.

The appeal site forms part of a more contemporary development, comprising a commercial frontage at the ground floor level which provides a plinth to a tall office building above. This group of frontages (no.13 to [address]) is visually distinct to others on this side of [address] due to its set back from the road edge and more modern appearance. There is, however, consistency across this group arising from its tall blank fascia and parapet above the ground level shopfronts, which encloses the flat roof behind. This consistency and regularity contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area through giving the group a distinct appearance to the more traditional buildings around it.

The proposal would see the insertion of an additional line of windows above the shopfront. While the scale and alignment of the windows would respect those below, this is not a pattern of openings which exists elsewhere on the group. The windows would puncture the blank fascia and would appear heavily at odds with the other commercial frontages within this distinct group, causing a loss of consistency in their appearance. For this reason, the proposal would not preserve, but would cause harm to, the character and appearance of the CA.

For the purposes of assessment against the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), this harm would be less than substantial, and it would be at the lower end of the scale, given the nature of the proposal. Nonetheless, the Framework requires that great weight be given to an asset’s conservation irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial or less than substantial harm to its significance.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that less than substantial harm be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. The removal of the existing signage at the appeal site would be a welcome benefit since it currently obscures the existing square windows and sits awkwardly on the frontage. It is not clear, however, where replacement signage might be installed without causing the same problem. The proposal would facilitate the installation of an internal mezzanine level, providing additional commercial floorspace. In turn this would support the function and vitality of the town centre and this secondary frontage, and it could support local businesses. However, it is not apparent, based on the evidence, that this is the only solution to facilitate the mezzanine. Taken together, while these are important benefits, they attract only moderate weight based on the supporting information. As a consequence, the harm to the CA would not be outweighed by the public benefits.

For the reasons given, the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, and would cause harm to its significance which would not be outweighed by public benefits. The proposal would therefore conflict with policies LLP1, LLP25 and LLP30 of the Luton Local Plan 2017 which together require high quality design which responds to local context and protection of heritage assets.

The appellant has received pre application advice from the Council since the refusal of planning permission. However, as an informal officer opinion, it does not amount to a reason to alter the above judgement. The appellant also comments on the Council’s behaviour during the course of the application, as well as the fee incurred by the planning application. However, these do not amount to reasons to allow the appeal.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are not material considerations of sufficient weight, including approaches in the Framework, which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.