Appeal 6005650

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the area.

The appeal site comprises of a single storey community building that occupies a prominent corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address], with a low brick perimeter wall and small open car parking area at the rear.

It is located within a mixed use area characterised by residential, commercial and community premises of varied styles and designs. Where boundary walls and fences exist in front of the adjacent properties, these are generally low, clearly subsidiary, and have little impact upon the sense of openness when travelling along the busy roads adjoining the site, which add to the open and varied character and appearance of the street scene.

The exception to this, is the high metal mesh perimeter fencing around the front of the [name] commercial building on [address] adjacent to the site and the boundary wall with decorative metal railings above and entrance gates at the front of the [name] and community centre directly opposite the site on [address]. Whilst this boundary fencing/railings is a similar height and covers a larger site frontage than the appeal scheme, they are nonetheless of a different scale and form to the appeal scheme and their appearance is softened by some form of landscaping positioned either in front or behind of the fencing.

The scale, layout and form of the proposed 2.1m high perimeter railings and gates would result in a significant addition in this location. Such positioning, close to the front of the host building and back edge of the footpath, would be out of character with the modest, single storey form of the host building and the generally more modest boundary walls/fences found in the area and as such would compromise the sense of space and openness in the area.

These shortcomings would be exacerbated by the change in the site levels along [address] and the proposed development’s prominent position which would be visible from a number of public vantage points along [address] and [address]. I therefore consider that the proposed development, by virtue of its scale, siting and design, would results in an incongruous and out-of-keeping addition, with a stark and utilitarian appearance, with limited areas of landscaping, that adversely harms rather than positively contributes to the character and appearance of the host building and the area.

I have considered the appellant’s arguments that the design and layout of the proposed development have been carefully considered in order to provide additional security to the site and building with a large degree of glazed windows and to minimises any adverse impacts on the area. However, whilst the use of materials would assist in integrating the development with the area, these aspects do not overcome the adverse effects outlined above.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would adversely harm the character and appearance of the host building and the area. It would be contrary to Policies LLP1 and LLP25 of the Luton Local Plan 2017 which, amongst other things, require development proposals to be of a high quality design that improve or enhance the distinctiveness and character of the area. In addition, it would conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework that developments should seek to secure a high quality of design that are sympathetic to the local character (paragraphs 131 and 135).

I note the appellant’s desire is to improve security at the appeal building and site due to concerns about public safety, especially children attending the site and that the works are being carried out under the [name] for [name] and in accordance with the secured by design guidance set out by the Police. I have considerable sympathy for the appellant’s circumstances. However, whilst I give this matter significant weight in making this decision, it does not set a precedent for such an inappropriate development in this location.

I have noted the other developments in the area drawn to my attention by the appellant. [name] have taken these other examples into account, they have different development characteristics to the appeal scheme and do not materially alter my conclusions on the appeal proposal. I also note the appellant’s comments regarding the various benefits arising from the proposal including the scheme’s design and the security. [name] have given them some weight, these benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified.

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