Appeal 6004846

The appeal is dismissed.

There are two main issues. Firstly, the effect of the front boundary and gate and the rear balcony on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, including the street scene of Sundon Park Road; and secondly, the effect of the rear balcony on the living conditions of adjoining and nearby occupiers with respect to privacy noise, outlook and visual intrusion.

Sundon Park Road is a busy urban street with dwellings on one side and a business park opposite. The road is wide with verges and footways on both sides. Dwellings are set back from the street behind mostly open frontages marked by low walls, some with light railings between modest pillars, and vegetation. Low and dwarf walls form the side boundaries, separating each plot. Dwellings are mostly similar semi-detached houses with single storey side garages. Most are of red brick, but some have rendering, particularly at first floor. In a number of cases first floor extensions above the garages have been built but the overall character of the street is one of spaciousness and openness.

The appeal dwelling is a semi-detached house similar to others in the street. It has been rendered and painted white. The proposed development has already been carried out. At the time of my site visit, the original front and side boundaries had been replaced by white rendered walls with inset dark metal panels between piers and metal vehicular and pedestrian gates. The front boundary wall was well in excess of 1m with the piers, panels and gates noticeably higher. The side boundaries were similar and stepped up from the street to the dwelling. Appeal Decision Ref: 6004846

If allowed to remain, the walls and gates would have an incongruous, enclosing effect on the plot, out of keeping with the open frontages that characterise the street. The stark white render, height of the structures and limited visual permeability of the metal panels and gates would exacerbate the effect. The boundary treatment would stand out in the street scene and would be seen not only from in front of the dwelling but also when approaching the dwelling. Overall, it would form a discordant and harsh addition that would detract from the character and appearance of the dwelling and the street scene.

The appellant draws my attention to other boundaries, including with metal gates and railings, in the surrounding area. However, these are mostly on different streets, some distance from Sundon Park Road, where the character of the area may vary. Moreover, in a number of cases the examples are not readily comparable, due to being lower and/or having more visually permeable railings and gates.

Turning to the rear balcony, this has been created above a single storey rear extension through the addition of railings. A door has replaced a window in the rear elevation to provide potential access, although this is blocked by a Juliet balcony. The railings are relatively tall, rising to part way up the level of the first floor windows.

The balcony is large, enclosing the whole of the roof of the extension and forming a sizeable roof terrace. The railings are clearly visible from the garden of the appeal dwelling and from neighbouring dwellings and their gardens, and in particular from the adjoining neighbour, No 342. Owing to their scale and position, if allowed to remain they would form an incongruous and disproportionate addition at first floor level to the rear of this modest house. As such, they would dominate and detract from the character and appearance of the rear elevation of the dwelling and the surrounding area.

It is concluded on the first main issue that both the front boundary and gate, and the rear balcony would have a materially detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, including the street scene of Sundon Park Road. In consequence, they would conflict with Policies LLP25, LLP19 and LLP1 of the Luton Local Plan 2011-2031 (LP), adopted 2017. Taken together and amongst other things, these expect new development, including to dwellings, to be of a high quality design that enhances the sense of place and responds to and preserves the local character of the area and the host building, through appropriate scale, height, pattern, layout and materials, so as to provide continuity of built form.

Turning to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, the appellant states that the Juliet balcony that has been installed would prevent access to the flat roof and that there is no intention of using the area for sitting out. The railings, he argues, are simply decorative.

The balcony, if used, would result in overlooking of neighbouring properties and in particular the adjoining neighbour, No 342 as well as No 338. Owing to the proximity of No 342 to the balcony and the position of first floor windows, views into a habitable room would be possible as well as overlooking of the garden. This would result in a material harm to privacy. Moreover, talking or music being played from the balcony would lead to an unacceptable noise intrusion. However, this Appeal Decision Ref: 6004846 harm could be controlled through a planning condition, prohibiting the use of the balcony, particularly since the appellant states that its use is not intended, and the Juliet balcony supports this assertion.

Nevertheless, if allowed to remain, the railings would, owing to their height and proximity to habitable first floor windows, result in a material loss of outlook and visual intrusion, especially for occupiers of No 342. Moreover, since the gardens at the appeal dwelling and its neighbours are modest in size and on rising ground, outlook to the rear is restricted. In consequence, the angled outlook to the sides, over neighbouring properties, and particularly from No 342 to the south-east are valuable in providing a more open aspect.

It is concluded on the second main issue that whilst privacy and noise nuisance could be controlled through a planning condition prohibiting the use of the balcony, the harm caused by the railings to nearby occupiers in terms of outlook and visual intrusion would not be overcome. In consequence, the proposed development would conflict with [name] LLP1, LLP25 and in particular LLP19 which expects development to avoid any materially adverse effect on the amenity of nearby occupiers in respect of, amongst other things, visual intrusion.

The appellant suggests, in the context of the front boundary wall and gates, that they would provide security to the dwelling. However, since the street is characterised by open frontages this would not amount to a justification for allowing a development that is harmful to the character and appearance of the area and contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan.

For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.