Detached playroom

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 December 2017 by R Norman BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 20th December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/B0230/D/17/3182364 27 Bradley Road, Luton LU4 8SL  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr W Hussain against the decision of Luton Council.  The application Ref 17/00787/FUL, dated 26 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 14 July 2017.  The development proposed is a detached playroom. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a detached playroom at 27 Bradley Road, Luton LU4 8SL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/00787/FUL, dated 26 April 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing Numbers 1488-07; 1488-08; 1488-09 and 1488-10. 2) The outbuilding shall not be used for any purpose other than those incidental to the host dwelling and no trade or business shall be carried on therefrom, nor shall it be used as a separate or self-contained living space or residential accommodation. Preliminary Matters 2. The playroom has been largely constructed, with the blockwork walls and roofing in situ. I have therefore determined the appeal partially retrospectively. 3. Since the determination of the application by the Council the Luton Local Plan (2011-2031) has been formally adopted (November 2017). Therefore Policies LLP1, LLP19 and LLP25 are now relevant to this case. These policies have superseded the original policies, LP1, ENV9 and H4, however are sufficiently similar in their aims so as not to result in prejudice to either party. As such, I have considered the appeal on the basis of the newly adopted policies. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision APP/B0230/D/17/3182364 2 Reasons 5. The appeal site comprises a mid-terraced dwelling sited to the south of Bradley Road. The development is for a detached playroom located in the rear garden, adjacent to the rear boundary of the site, to be used in connection with the existing dwelling. The garden is relatively long and narrow and there are numerous examples of rear outbuildings visible within the immediate surroundings, including in both of the adjoining sites. Directly to the rear of the site is the Luton - Dunstable Busway with a footpath and cycleway also present. 6. The roof and part of the rear wall of the building is visible above the rear boundary of the site, from the busway. In the wider context there are several outbuildings adjacent to the rear boundaries of the properties which are also visible from this vantage point. Whilst some of these have flat roofs or are smaller in scale, the sizes of the buildings vary and some do have pitched roofs. Although, the pitched roof of the development is reasonably prominent from the busway, the outbuilding has been well designed and utilises good quality roofing materials. As such, whilst the building projects above the rear boundary due to the elevated land levels within the site, this is not unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the area. 7. The playroom is located at the far end of the garden, which is reasonably long but narrow. The dwellings fronting onto Bradley Road, some of which are three and four storey, form a backdrop when viewing the site from the Busway, which establishes a character of dense residential development. This lessens the visual impact of the building. The land levels along Bradley Road slope from East to West resulting in the garden of No. 25 being higher than the appeal site, and the garden of No. 29 being set lower. The location of the playroom at the far end of the garden would have no harmful impact on the host dwelling, nor the neighbours either side of the site, both of which have outbuildings located to the rear of their gardens. The scale of the playroom is not excessive in relation to the surrounding properties. 8. I have had regard to the previous Appeal decision on the adjacent property, however, the general character of the busway does not present a high quality visual appearance, and in the context of its surroundings the presence of this building does not detract from the current appearance. Vegetation has grown up along the busway and the character is now clearly one where outbuildings, located along the boundary with the footpath and cycle way, are present. This appeal development is well designed with use of good materials which minimises the impact on the character when viewed from the south and the presence of the existing trees in the area further minimises the visual impact. 9. For the above reasons, I consider that the development is not overly large or out of scale with its setting when viewed from the busway and adjoining sites. As such, the development is not unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the area or the host dwelling. The development therefore complies with Policies LLP1, LLP19 and LLP25 of the Luton Local Plan (2011 – 2031) (2017). These policies seek to ensure that annexes and outbuildings are ancillary to the dwelling in terms of their size and facilities and enhance the character of an area by responding positively to the townscape and street scene. Appeal Decision APP/B0230/D/17/3182364 3 Conditions 10. As the proposed development has been partially constructed a time limit condition for implementation is not necessary. I have attached a condition listing the approved plans as this provides certainty. A condition linking the use of the building to the main dwelling and no commercial or independent use is necessary due to the location of the building. A condition restricting any further windows is not necessary given the location of the building and the length of the adjoining rear gardens. A condition requiring the materials to match the dwelling is not necessary as the building is partially constructed and the external finishes are detailed on the elevational drawings. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. R Norman INSPECTOR