Appeal 6005920

The appeal is dismissed.

The information submitted with the appeal indicates that the development had been completed prior to the point at which the application was made. Therefore, the plans submitted with the application are intended to be a representation of what is already there. During my site visit, I noted that the development had taken place, I have proceeded on this basis.

The main issues are the effect of the development on the: • character and appearance of the area; • living conditions of the occupants of [address] (No 72) with particular regard to outlook, light, noise and disturbance; • role, function and vitality of designated centres; and • health of the local community.

The appeal site is within an existing commercial site located within a predominantly residential area. The neighbouring dwellings are typically two-storey, detached and semi-detached dwellings finished in brick or render with tile or slate roofs.

The development’s position within the site, forward of the adjacent dwelling, makes it highly visible in the streetscene. Whilst the finishing materials may assist in unifying the different elements of the development itself, they do not appear to be high quality and, due to their appearance and colour, the development does not enhance the distinctiveness or character of the area. Accordingly, the design and position of the development render it a prominent and discordant feature within the streetscene.

The appellant refers to a photograph of the site prior to the development and submits that the development improves the condition of the site. However, in my view, the use as a car park did not appear to detract from the character and appearance of the area and therefore the development does not improve the site’s appearance.

For the above reasons, the development harms the character and appearance of the area. It therefore conflicts with Policies LLP1 and LLP25 of the Local Luton Plan (LP) which, amongst other things, expect high quality design and development that contributes to enhancing a sense of place and which preserves or improves the character of the area. The development also conflicts with paragraphs 135 and 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which, together, seek to ensure that developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and ensure high quality design.

Whilst noise is generated by traffic using [address], and to a lesser extent by existing commercial activity within the site, noise levels would reasonably be expected to reduce during night-time hours. The development attracts vehicular movements and associated activity at the site including at night-time. This would potentially result in noise and disturbance at times when neighbouring occupiers could otherwise expect a greater degree of tranquillity, harming the living conditions of No 72.

In response to the Council’s suggested condition, the appellant has proposed a restriction preventing customer service between midnight and 0700. Due to the lateness of the hours proposed, I do not consider the suggested hours would adequately address the harm identified.

Although the occupants of No 72 have not objected to the planning application it does not remove the responsibility for me to consider the impacts on their living

The site was previously used as a car park whereby vehicles of various sizes could park adjacent to the dwelling at No 72. Due to the position and size of the development, and when compared with the previous use as a car park, I am satisfied there would not be any harmful loss of light or outlook to the neighbouring occupants.

In conclusion, the development harms the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties with regard to noise and disturbance. It therefore conflicts with Policy LLP1 which seeks to manage change to create a network of high quality places. It conflicts with LLP25 of the LP which seeks high quality design. The development also conflicts with paragraph 135(f) of the Framework which seeks to ensure that developments create places which promote a high standard of amenity for existing users.

Policy LLP2 of the LP states that town centre and retail uses will be directed in accordance with the centre hierarchy in Policy LLP21 of the LP. That policy states that planning permission will be granted for retail development provided that the sequential test is met and the vitality and viability of town, district and neighbourhood centres would not be significantly adversely affected by the scheme on its own or in combination with other schemes.

The site lies outside of a town, district or neighbourhood centre. No impact assessment is necessary due to the small size of the unit. On its own, it is unlikely that the development would significantly adversely affect the designated centres. However, the appellant has not provided a sequential test. In the absence of such, it has not been demonstrated that the development would not adversely affect designated centres or that there are not more sequentially suitable locations for it.

It is not possible to conclude that the development has an acceptable effect on the role, function and vitality of designated centres. Therefore, I must take a precautionary approach and find that there would be conflict with Policies LLP1, LLP2 and LLP21 of the LP which collectively direct retail and other main town centre uses to town, district and neighbourhood centres and seek to ensure such areas would not be significantly adversely affected by the scheme on its own or in combination with other schemes. The development would conflict with paragraph 91 of the Framework which advocates the use of a sequential test for main town centre uses such as retail.

The Council has referred to the site as being within walking distance from a nursery and two primary schools. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the development would necessarily attract a passing trade from school children. Whilst the Council has provided evidence of childhood and adult obesity levels in Luton, there is no evidence linking this to the development or similar developments in the area.

To conclude, there is no substantive evidence demonstrating that the development harms the health of the local community. Accordingly, there is no conflict with Policies LLP1 and LLP25 of the LP insofar as they seek to promote healthy places and communities. I also find no conflict with Section 8 of the Framework which promotes healthy and safe communities.

The development contributes to the local economy. This benefit attracts limited weight due to the small scale of the development. It would not outweigh the harm I have identified above.

For the above reasons, the development conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations before me that indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.