Appeal 6004991

The appeal is dismissed.

There are two main issues. Firstly, the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the street scene of [address] and the surrounding area; and secondly, the effect of the extension on the living conditions of occupiers of [address] with respect to privacy, visual intrusion and outlook and on future occupiers of the appeal dwelling with respect to daylight and sunlight.

The Council has confirmed that the plan numbers set out in its decision notice are incorrect. It has provided the correct numbers and submitted the correct plans with its evidence. I have used these in reaching my decision.

The appeal dwelling is a large two storey house situated in a mainly residential area at the junction between [site address] and [address]. The building fronts [address] but faces [address] to the rear. It has vehicular access from [address] to a wide but shallow area of hardstanding. There is a large area of garden to the side of the property towards the junction.

The dwelling has a single storey rear extension some 4.8m deep and about 9m wide. Contrary to the Council’s evidence, this appears to have been granted planning permission in 2021 (Ref: 21/00503/FULHH). The proposed first floor extension would be above this single storey extension. It would have a shallow hipped roof.

The rear of the dwelling is highly visible from [address]. Its position, functional design and large area of hardstanding result in a discordant relationship with the other dwellings which, notwithstanding their varied design, all front the street Appeal Decision Ref: 6004991 behind low boundaries. Nevertheless, the single storey character of the existing rear extension provides space above it and openness is retained between it and [address] above first floor. This ensures that the first-floor bulk of the building remains sufficiently separated from the street so as not to dominate the street scene.

The proposed first floor extension would bring two-storey built development at its closest point to about the same building line as No 32 and other houses beyond. Its scale and design which, notwithstanding the rear door in the existing single storey extension, fails to take opportunities to enhance its street-facing appearance, would make it an overbearing and jarring presence in this prominent frontage location. Overall, it would materially detract from the traditional character and appearance of the street scene. Moreover, it would block much of the visual gap at first floor between the appeal site and No 32, resulting in a cramped form of development.

In terms of the effect on the host building, the extension would be a bulky addition, in a highly visible location. I note that a shallow hipped roof has been chosen to limit its scale. However, this would be out of keeping with the original dwelling, which is characterised by gables. The hipped roof would thus emphasise the incongruous appearance of the proposed extension. Whilst the extension would not alter the appearance of the front elevation, it would be readily visible in side views, including from the junction with [site address] . As such, it would detract from the character and appearance of the dwelling as a whole and the wider area.

The appellant suggests that as the extension would sit above an existing single storey addition its depth and width could not be judged to be excessive. However, what is acceptable in terms of scale and bulk at single storey is not necessarily acceptable at first floor level. Moreover, the small set down of the proposed roof and set in from the side elevations would, in view of the street facing position of the extension, be insufficient to ensure an adequate degree of subordination or proportionality with the host dwelling.

It is concluded on the first main issue that the proposed first floor extension would have a materially detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the street scene of [address] and the surrounding area. In consequence, it would conflict with Policies LLP1, LLP19 and LLP25 of the Luton Local Plan 2011-2031(LP), adopted 2017. Taken together and amongst other things these expect new development, including extensions 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 design.

Turning to the effect on living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and future occupiers of the proposed development, the extension would bring two storey development to within about 2.2m of the shared boundary with [address]. This would obscure much of the open outlook over the existing single storey addition. Owing to the existing surrounding built development, this outlook from No 32 is important in maintaining openness. If this was lost, the property, and in particular its garden, would become noticeably more penned in. The close proximity of the proposed development would make it an overbearing addition, only exacerbating the effect. I find this would materially harm the living conditions of occupiers of No 32 with respect to visual intrusion and outlook. Appeal Decision Ref: 6004991

A large window is shown in the side elevation of the proposed extension. This would directly overlook the garden at No 32. However, the appellant accepts that this would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy and states that he would be willing to obscure glaze the window and accept a planning condition requiring this to be retained. The affected room would be an enlargement of an existing room and would continue to benefit from one large existing window and one smaller new window in the rear elevation. I therefore find this would be acceptable.

In terms of the effect on future occupiers, the Council is concerned that the middle bedroom in the proposed extension would lack natural light owing to its shape and the position and size of the window. I agree that natural light, including sunlight, reaching parts of the room would be limited, particularly since the window would look towards the side elevation at No 32. Nevertheless, I accept the appellant’s argument that the internal layout of the room could be configured to mean that activity took place in the area closest to the window. Moreover, I consider that since there would be four further bedrooms, the fact that one was poorly lit by natural light would not be materially harmful to the living conditions of occupiers of the dwelling as a whole, since other areas would be adequately lit. I therefore find this aspect of the internal layout acceptable.

It is concluded on the second main issue that although there would be no material harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of the appeal dwelling, and privacy at No 32 could be secured through a planning condition, the effect on living conditions at [address] with respect to visual intrusion and outlook would be materially harmed. In consequence, the proposed extension would conflict with [name] LLP1, LLP25 and in particular LLP19 which expects new development not to adversely affect the amenity of nearby occupiers with respect to, amongst other things, visual intrusion.

For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, including the alleged sustainability of the proposed development and the general reference to other development in the area, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.