Appeal 6005748

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of the dwelling regarding daylight and the amount of outdoor space; and • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

No [site address] (No 48) is a mid-terraced residential property that has a two-storey rear projection and benefits from a long rear garden. Other properties in the row have substantial and deep, predominantly single storey, rear extensions. The extensions to the rear of Nos 46 and [address] (Nos 46 and 50), either side of the appeal site, are deep and extend to the side boundaries with No 48.

A single storey rear extension is proposed that would be nearly as wide as the plot. It would vary in depth: shallower on its boundary with No 50; and deeper (approximately 6m) on the opposite side.

The proposed extension would create a very deep building footprint at ground floor level. Due to the property’s mid-terrace position, the centrally located kitchen/dining room would have very little penetrating daylight, regardless of the provision of glazing to the rear, which would be a substantial distance away. Thus, the proposal would create a dark and oppressive environment for occupants of the dwelling that would be detrimental to their health and well-being.

It is noted that the dwelling’s existing kitchen sits centrally on the ground floor and does not benefit from any windows. However, internal alterations could be made to the existing ground floor accommodation to alleviate this issue, and such amendments would not necessarily be reliant on the increase in floorspace and depth of the property that this scheme seeks.

The property benefits from a long rear garden, a large portion of which would be retained following the construction of the extension, retaining an acceptable amount of useable outdoor space for residents. Whilst no harm is found on this matter, it does not outweigh the harm found in relation to daylight.

For the above reasons, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupants of the dwelling regarding daylight. Thus, it would be contrary to Policies LLP19 and LLP25 of the Luton Local Plan (2017) (LP), which, amongst other things, require high quality design that minimises loss of light.

Although large in footprint, the proposed extension would be similar in depth to the rear extensions of Nos 46 and 50 respectively, reflecting the character of the surrounding area, where deep single storey extensions are prevalent. Furthermore, although the extension would have a flat roof, which is not a common feature in the immediate area, it would only be single storey in height and therefore less prominent than adjacent taller pitched roof extensions when viewed from neighbouring properties.

A large part of the garden would be retained, generally consistent in terms of area with other plots along the terraced row. The proposed extension would therefore not give rise to a cramped or overdeveloped plot.

For the above reasons, the proposal would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the host property or the surrounding area. Thus, it would comply with [name] LLP1, LLP19 and LLP25, that, amongst other things, require dwelling extensions to be of a scale, mass, layout and design that are consistent with and proportionate to the principal dwelling, surrounding properties and the character of the area.

The appellant has presented a fallback position, which comprises the construction of a single storey rear extension under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).

The Council determined that prior approval was not required1 for a single storey rear extension with a depth of 6m, as shown on the associated plans. However, exemption from prior approval does not relieve the appellant from needing to comply with other conditions and limitations of Class A. The limitations include paragraph A.1.(g) that confirms development is not permitted if the enlargement of part of a terraced dwellinghouse for example, would have a single storey extending beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 6m. No 48 has an existing two-storey rear projection that is an anomaly within this terraced row and consequently appears as a later addition to the original property. A 6m extension 1 Council Ref 25/00739/PARES. under this fallback position would extend beyond the two-storey projection rather than beyond what is more likely to be the extent of the original dwellinghouse. There is no substantive evidence to affirm otherwise. Therefore, the presented fallback position does not offer a realistic or probable prospect and consequently it does not represent a legitimate fallback position.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be made other than in accordance with it. Thus, the appeal is dismissed.