Appeal 6009116

The appeal is dismissed.

Two of the reasons for refusal are concerned with the impact of the proposal on the living conditions for occupiers of the dwelling with regard to internal and external living space. I have for ease of reference put these reasons together in the context of the first main issue due to some inevitable overlap in terms of the key issues and policies.

The Council’s fourth reason for refusal relates to the effect of the proposal on highway safety by reason of the proposed parking layout. No reference to any applicable Local Plan policies is detailed within the decision notice. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. I have accordingly assessed this reason for refusal on this basis.

The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the proposal on (i) the living conditions for existing and future occupiers of the dwelling with regard to internal and external amenity space (ii) the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area and (iii) highway safety in relation to parking.

Policies LLP19 and LLP25 of the Luton Local Plan 2011-2031 (adopted 2017) (LP) requires all development to be of high quality design and to not adversely affect the amenities of occupiers. Turning to the external amenity space, whilst the Council indicate that the proposal would result in more than 50% of the original garden space being occupied by built development, no dimensions are before me of the space to be retained, nor are any details before me as to whether the standards set out in Appendix 6 of the LP for garden size would be met. From my observations on site, the outdoor space to be retained, although limited, would nonetheless enable the occupiers of the dwelling to carry out the usual everyday outdoor activities such as the drying of clothes, the siting of a table and chairs and outdoor play. In this regard and on the basis of the information before me I see no cause to find that the proposal would result in inadequate external amenity space.

The proposal would comprise of an extended kitchen/diner, additional bedroom, bath, shower and utility rooms. The Council express particular concern about the side facing windows sited close the side boundary which are intended to be inwards opening with obscure glazing. The neighbouring property has a side extension immediately adjacent to this boundary, As a consequence these windows would have little outlook facing a blank wall. The rooms served by these windows would not however be habitable rooms and would be typical of rooms intended for dressing, utility and bathroom use. I accept therefore that use of inward opening windows would not necessarily render these spaces unsuitable for their intended use. However, no details are provided as to how ventilation, or practical access for maintenance of the windows would be met and as such I am unable to conclude with any certainty that the appeal scheme would meet satisfactory living conditions in this regard.

Concern as to the lack of natural light due to the depth of the proposed extensions is also expressed by the Council. The rear part of the proposed development would face broadly south west and a large expanse of glazing would be installed within its elevation. However, the depth of the extension is such that whilst a degree of sufficient light would be provided to the extension, it would be likely the proposal would fail to provide an adequate level of light to the existing habitable space at the rear of the property. Overall, I am not persuaded that the design of the extension as proposed would afford the present or future occupiers of the dwelling with acceptable living conditions in respect of natural light.

Having regard to the above considerations, I therefore conclude that overall whilst the proposed development would provide satisfactory external amenity space, it would fail to provide satisfactory living conditions for the occupiers of the dwelling having specific regard to the size of the extension, and the nature of the intended use of the internal rooms. Accordingly, it would give rise to conflict with Policies LLP19 and LLP25 of the Local Plan, details of which I have given above.

The appeal property is a modest semi-detached dwelling located on a residential estate where dwellings are of a similar type with some variety in terms of their design and style. The proposal involves a substantial single storey extension that would wrap around the front, side and rear elevations of the host property. It would extend up to the site boundary with the neighbouring dwelling and would not appear proportionate to the existing dwelling. Due to its proximity to the site boundary and overall depth the extension would be a prominent feature in the street scene appearing bulky and cramped within the plot. It would be at odds in the arrangement of buildings within the street scene, where visual gaps between dwellings are a feature of their layout and appearance. As such the proposal would appear as a dominant addition to what is a modest building.

The appellant has referred to a varied pattern of development and other extensions within the area. I have not been provided with any details of these sites for comparison purposes and whilst I noted a number of extensions on my site visit, those larger extensions that I observed were generally sited on larger corner plots. As a result, the impact of these examples on the character and appearance of the area was materially different. In any event the existence of these other examples does not justify development which would otherwise be harmful.

On this issue I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. It would therefore fail to comply with Polices LLP1, LLP19 and LLP25 of the LP which seeks substainable development of high quality design by ensuring that extensions to dwellings are of an ancillary scale to the original building and to respect prevailing gaps between buildings. It would also be contrary to the Framework that seeks to achieve development sympathetic to local character.

The proposal would result in the creation of one additional bedroom. I note that, contrary to the layout plan submitted with the application which showed parking for three cars, the appellant indicates within the appeal documentation that the proposed parking layout would be suitable for two cars as required. No specific details as to the number of parking spaces recommended for the dwelling as extended however have been provided to me.

In any event, the Council’s concern relates to use of the grass verge for crossing over and manoeuvrability of vehicles to the site based on the submitted layout plan. No technical drawings have been put to me illustrating how vehicles could be manoeuvred to and from the appeal site. Be that as it may, the property already benefits from a dropped crossing and is sited within a residential area where at the time of my site visit, I found no issues with any parking difficulties and unrestricted street parking. Accordingly, I have no reason to consider that a scheme for suitable parking could not be achieved in this instance nor that the proposal should fail on the basis of highway issues. Thus, it would not therefore be contrary to the provisions within the Framework relating to highway safety which provides that development proposals should only be refused if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. Whilst it would not cause harm to the external living conditions of the occupiers of the dwelling nor harm to highway safety, it would also cause harm to the internal living conditions of the occupiers.

For the reasons given above having considered the development plan and all other material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.