Appeal 6005585

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s decision letter describes the canopy as retrospective. It is clear from the evidence provided and my site visit that the canopy had been erected at the front of the property. I shall determine the appeal on this basis accordingly.

The main issue is the effect of the timber canopy on the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

The appeal site comprises of a two storey extended detached property with ground floor retail use and residential above that occupies a prominent corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address]. It is located in a small parade of commercial units within a primarily residential area, some of which have projecting canopies of varying designs, albeit of a smaller scale as compared to the appeal scheme. This provides an open and generally uncluttered street scene along the wide paved pedestrian area in front of the parade in this location.

The low pitched canopy is of timber construction with supporting posts and open sides that extends across the frontage of the retail premises. It projects forward from the property by approximately 3.8m over the wide pedestrian area and is used for the external storage of bins, metal gas bottles and the display of goods on low timber stands during trading hours. Whilst the open sided nature of the canopy and the removal of the external goods outside trading hours, would reduce the impact on the openness to some degree, it is nevertheless a permanent structure and it’s visual impact noticeably exceeds that of the existing canopies.

I consider that the canopy, by virtue of its scale, siting and design, would result in an incongruous and out-of-keeping addition that results in unacceptable harm to the appeal property and the established character of the area. These shortcomings are exacerbated by the appeal site’s prominent position, which would be visible from a number of public vantage points along [address] and [address]. As such I consider that the canopy adversely harms rather than positively contributes to the character and appearance of the appeal property and the area.

I have considered the appellant’s arguments that the external display of goods is not an uncommon feature in commercial areas and that the design and layout of the canopy have been carefully considered in order to minimise any impacts on the appeal property and the area. However, whilst this maybe this case, these aspects do not overcome the adverse effects outlined above.

The appellant considers the development constitutes a sustainable form of development in line with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. I have considered the various benefits put forward by the appellant arising from the development including the scheme’s design, improved security and shopping environment for customers within the premises together with support for the local economy and the community. [name] have given them some weight, these benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified. For all these reasons, there are no other material considerations to outweigh the development plan conflicts identified below.

Consequently, I conclude that the timber canopy results in harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the area. It is contrary to the overall aims of Policies LLP1 and LLP25 of the Luton Local Plan 2017 which, amongst other things, require developments to be of a high quality design that improve or enhance the distinctiveness and character of the area. I find no conflict with Policy LLP31 which is not relevant in this case. In addition, it does not accord with the National Planning Policy Framework that developments should seek to secure a high quality of design (paragraph 131) that are sympathetic to the local character (paragraph 135).

For the reasons given above and having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the development is not be in accordance with the development plan when read as a whole and that the appeal should be dismissed.