Appeal 6004912

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are:

the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, and

whether the proposed development would provide satisfactory living conditions for the future occupants with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal site is on the edge of Luton town centre. The area contains a mix of building styles, from Victorian terraced houses to modern flat blocks. Although much of the area is residential, there are also other uses, including a church to the rear, a multi-storey car park, several small retail units, a vehicle garage and a large retail unit immediately to the south of the site. Building heights and forms vary from two-storey terraces to flat blocks of around seven storeys.

The site itself is formed of a broadly rectangular plot that accommodates the proposed building which is to the rear of buildings that address [address]. This is in addition to a dog leg area that provides access to [address] along with cycle parking and refuse storage. The proposed building is already largely complete in terms of its overall form and structure having been previously granted planning permission, albeit that the proposal has not been built in accordance with the approved details. At present it is unfinished with the basic structure of the building clearly in evidence but lacking windows, any detailing, landscaping or other associated works.

The site has been subject to various planning applications, including an appeal, having originally been granted permission in 20181. More recently planning permission was refused and dismissed at appeal for a scheme of 14 flats2 in 2024.

The proposal comprises the retention of the existing five storey building and its completion. This includes alterations to the façade of the building to complete it in a mix of red and yellow stock bricks, insertion of windows, alterations to the structure to form balconies and reconfiguration of the internal layout to provide seven flats in one and two bedroom configurations. Lower floors of the building would be used for communal functions including workspaces, storage and residents’ gym.

The previous Inspector, in relation to the 2024 appeal decision, considered that “the finished development, when seen from middle to longer distance views, would not appear as a discordant feature in this location.” I have no reason to disagree with this assessment. Concern was also expressed regarding the scale, height, form, and design including the arrangement of windows and balconies and lack of architectural and fenestration detailing.

In this proposal, the position of windows and balconies has been modified, particularly in relation to the use of materials. In this respect, the current proposal represents a considerable improvement to the appearance of the building. The re-introduction of windows to the front elevation, albeit that these are obscure glazed, assists in breaking up this façade. Likewise, the use of materials is much improved with a mix of brick types. These alterations are sufficient to address the design-based concerns relating to the building as its external appearance with the varied materials and with inserted windows, is sufficiently varied so as to provide a degree of interest.

However, the scale, height and form of the building remain unchanged between this proposal and the previously refused and dismissed scheme. These differences have not been addressed and therefore I am unable to conclude in a manner which differs from that of the previous Inspector. Accordingly, I find that the scale, height and form of the building would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal therefore conflicts with policies LLP1, LLP15 and LLP25 of the Luton Local Plan (LLP) and with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) policies insofar as the development does not respond positively to the local townscape, street scene, site and building context, form, scale and height.

The proposal comprises a total of seven flats and these are arranged over the top three floors of the building. Lower floors would be dedicated to other ancillary functions such as shared workspace, storage and laundry areas.

To the front (west) facing elevation, all windows would be obscure glazed and fixed shut to mitigate overlooking to this aspect. This affects all flats except flat 6 on the fourth floor. Whilst there would be no vantage in this westerly direction, the rooms facing this way are all bedrooms. Moreover, these bedrooms all feature two 1 Council ref: 17/00449/FUL 2 Council ref: 23/00232/FUL, Inspectorate ref: APP/B0230/W/24/3342696 windows with the alternate, side facing, windows being openable and with clear glazing.

Light would be available from the front facing windows and views outside would be available from the alternate windows to these bedrooms. As all the bedrooms have two windows to two different aspects, I am therefore satisfied that obscure glazing one of the two windows to the bedrooms does not, per se, result in an unacceptable standard of accommodation for the future occupants. Outlook and ventilation would, theoretically, be available from one of the two windows, and I find this to be sufficient.

In terms of outlook, to other aspects, flats on the fourth floor would have largely unconstrained views to the north, east and south due to their elevated height. Equally, flats 1 and 3 on the second and third floors (respectively) would have largely unconstrained outlooks to the north and east.

However, flats 2 and 4 would be set in very close proximity to the large retail building to the south. Flat [address] the side wall and roof of the retail building however, there is a sufficient height difference, such that there would, at least, be a view of the sky from flat 4 due to its position on the third floor. Although this relationship is not optimal, it does not result in such harm to living conditions as to justify refusal on this ground.

However, the bedrooms and living areas in flat 2 would in practice have very limited or no outlook from any aspect. The front facing window would be obscure glazed. The side (south) facing windows would only address a blank wall at the neighbouring retail unit. The only realistic outlook would be to the rear (east) from one living room window and the balcony. Even then, this would be constrained by a number of trees at the neighbouring property.

I therefore conclude that the living conditions for the occupants of flat 2 would be unsatisfactory due to the outlook from this flat providing no realistic vantage to the outside world. This would be contrary to policies LLP1 and LLP25 of the LLP, and would conflict with the Framework’s objective of achieving well designed places that provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land. The Council have not provided a figure, but the appellant nominates that this is 4.32 years and I have no reason to disagree with this. Therefore, this means that the provisions of 11 d) ii. of the Framework are engaged, and, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in 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.

I have found cause for concern in relation to the proposals effect on the character and appearance of the area. This is in relation to the scale, height and form of the building. Paragraph 61 of the Framework explains that to support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay. The overall aim should be to meet an area’s identified housing need, including with an appropriate mix of housing types for the local community.

As such, the benefits of granting permission include the delivery of seven new dwellings to meet the identified shortfall. These would be in a sustainable location and assist in reducing overcrowding in a built-up borough that is constrained by the surrounding Green Belt. Moreover, I am mindful that the building has already largely been completed and has been done so using sustainable methods of construction. The provision of these new dwellings in an area with a shortage of homes is therefore of significant weight.

Given the scale of these benefits I find they would outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area. There would therefore be no conflict with policies LLP1, LLP15 and LLP25 overall and insofar as it relates to the impact on the character and appearance of the area.

However, the adverse effects upon the living conditions of the future occupants of flat 2, due to an unsatisfactory outlook, is substantial. The harm arising from these substandard living conditions is such that, in this instance, this significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits that the scheme would deliver. There remains a conflict with policies LLP1 and LLP25 of the LLP in that the proposal is not a high-quality design or creates a quality space.

Accordingly, on balance, I find that the harm caused to the character and appearance of the area is outweighed by the significant benefits of the proposal. However, the living conditions of the future occupants is inalienable in this context, as providing homes with such substandard levels of accommodation conflicts with the noted policies of the LLP and with the Framework’s paragraphs 7 and 8, which emphasise the social objective of sustainable development, including creating a high quality built environment with accessible services and a high standard of amenity. This level of harm is sufficient to warrant withholding planning permission on this ground.

While the delivery of seven dwellings attracts significant weight in the context of the current housing land supply position, the substantial harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of flat 2 conflicts with the Framework’s policies on achieving well-designed places and providing a high standard of amenity for future users. In this case, that harm significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan, and the material considerations do not indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed.