Erection of a two-storey front and single- storey side extension, raising roof by 290mm to main house, raising the roof to single- storey rear extension, erection of rear dormer extension, conversion of roof space into Appeal Decisions APP/B0230/D/18/3197247, APP/B0230/D/18/3197253, APP/B0230/D/18/3197251 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 habitable accommodation and installation of five rooflights in front-facing roof slope

Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 6 April 2018 by R A Exton Dip URP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27th April 2018 Appeal A Ref: APP/B0230/W/17/3187949 6 Winton Close, Luton LU2 7BJ  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Mohammed T G against Luton Council.  The application Ref 17/00612/FUL, is dated 13 December 2015.  The development proposed is described as, as built retention application for rear dormer loft conversion. Appeal B Ref: APP/B0230/D/18/3197247 6 Winton Close, Luton LU2 7BJ  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 Mohammed T G against the decision of Luton Council.  The application Ref 17/02036/FULHH, dated 14 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 2 February 2018.  The development proposed is described as erection of a two-storey front and single- storey side extension, raising roof by 290mm to main house and raising the roof to single-storey rear extension. Appeal C Ref: APP/B0230/D/18/3197253 6 Winton Close, Luton LU2 7BJ  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 Mohammed T G against the decision of Luton Council.  The application Ref 17/02039/FULHH, dated 14 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 2 February 2018.  The development proposed is described as erection of a two-storey front and single- storey side extension, raising roof by 290mm to main house, raising the roof to single - storey rear extension, erection of rear dormer extension, conversion of roof space into habitable accommodation and installation of five rooflights in front-facing roof slope. Appeal D Ref: APP/B0230/D/18/3197251 6 Winton Close, Luton LU2 7BJ  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 Mohammed T G against the decision of Luton Council.  The application Ref 17/02038/FUL, dated 14 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 2 February 2018.  The development proposed is described as Erection of a two-storey front and single- storey side extension, raising roof by 290mm to main house, raising the roof to single- storey rear extension, erection of rear dormer extension, conversion of roof space into Appeal Decisions APP/B0230/D/18/3197247, APP/B0230/D/18/3197253, APP/B0230/D/18/3197251 2 habitable accommodation and installation of five rooflights in front-facing roof slope. Decision Appeal A 1. The appeal is dismissed. Decision Appeal B 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a two- storey front and single-storey side extension, raising roof by 290mm to main house and raising the roof to single-storey rear extension at 6 Winton Close, Luton LU2 7BJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/02036/FULHH, dated 14 November 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 09/17-P1, 09/17-P2, and 09/17-P3 Rev A. 2) No development shall commence in respect of the areas of render to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions hereby permitted until a sample panel of the render has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved sample. 3) For those elements of the development hereby permitted that have commenced, development of the external surfaces shall be completed in materials to match those already used. Decision Appeal C 3. The appeal is dismissed. Decision Appeal D 4. The appeal is dismissed. Application for costs 5. An application for costs was made by Mr Mohammed T G against Luton Council in connection with Appeal A. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Procedural Matters 6. The appellant’s name appears in different configurations on different documents. I have used the version on the planning application form which the appellant identifies as correct. 7. As set out above, there are 4 appeals on this site. They relate to different schemes for the alteration and extension of No 6 Winton Close. I have considered each proposal on its own merits. However, to avoid duplication I have dealt with the 4 schemes together. At the time of my site visit it was Appeal Decisions APP/B0230/D/18/3197247, APP/B0230/D/18/3197253, APP/B0230/D/18/3197251 3 apparent that some development relating to an earlier planning permission and some elements common to Appeals A-D had been carried out. 8. Since the Council refused the planning application it has adopted a new Local Plan1. I have sought the Council’s and appellant’s views on the most up-to- date policies relevant to the appeal proposals. Main Issue 9. The main issue is the effect of the proposals on the appearance of the area. Reasons Appeals A, C and D 10. No 6 is a detached property set back from the northern side of Winton Close in a row of other detached properties that follow a slightly varied building line. Planning permission has previously been granted for extensions and alterations to No 6. The most recent is planning permission Ref 16/0031/FUL. This permits the erection of a 2 storey front and single storey side extension together with raising the roof to the main house by 290mm and raising the roof to the single storey rear extension. This development will significantly alter the appearance of No 6 when viewed from Winton Close. The projection of extensions towards Winton Close and particularly the gables at first floor level will appear in contrast to other properties on the northern side of the road. This is because these are generally designed with their ridgelines and main roof slope parallel to the road. Development permitted by planning permission Ref 16/0031/FUL has commenced and I have no reason to question if it will be completed. The appeal proposals therefore need to be considered in light of the development that can take place regardless of their outcome. 11. Appeals A, C and D relate to a flat roofed dormer extension within the rear facing roof slope at first floor level. Appeals A and D relate to the dormer extension as built. It occupies almost the whole extent of the roof slope, being only slightly inset from all existing parts of it. Its bulk and contrasting appearance to No 6 make it appear as an incongruous addition. 12. Appeal C relates to a smaller dormer extension. This would be inset more from the ridgeline and eastern extent of the existing roof when compared to the dormer extension as built. Although smaller, this extension would still occupy a large proportion of the roof slope. As such, its bulk and contrasting appearance to No 6 would also make it appear as an incongruous addition. 13. Moreover, the dormer extension as built is highly visible within the surrounding area. It can clearly be seen between a number of properties on both the north/south and east/west limbs of the Old Bedford Road. It is also visible from the rear gardens of these, and many other properties in the area. Furthermore, properties either side of the appeal site have relatively unaltered rear roof slopes with which the dormer extension contrasts harshly, reinforcing my view that it is harmful in its setting. The dormer extension would be similarly visible and similarly viewed in the context of other properties in the area. Its lesser size compared to the dormer extension as built would not significantly reduce its effect. 1 The Luton Local Plan (2011-2031) adopted in November 2017. Appeal Decisions APP/B0230/D/18/3197247, APP/B0230/D/18/3197253, APP/B0230/D/18/3197251 4 14. Other properties on the northern side of Winton Close further to the west appear to have been extended to the rear. However, these extensions are of complementary appearance to the host properties. As such they do not have a harmful effect on the appearance of the area. 15. I note that the dormer extensions contained within the appeal proposals may have been carried out as permitted development in different circumstances. I also note that nearby properties may change in appearance through exercise of permitted development. However, in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act it is necessary to consider the appeals in accordance with the development plan and any relevant material considerations. In doing so I have taken account of the appearance of the area at the time of the appeal. There is insufficient evidence before me to demonstrate that the exercise of permitted development rights in the area in the future may make Appeals A, C and D acceptable. 16. In light of the above I conclude that the dormer extension to which Appeals A and D relate has a harmful effect on the appearance of the area. The dormer extension to which Appeal C relates would also have a harmful effect on the appearance of the area. Consequently, these appeal proposals would conflict with Policies LLP1, LLP19 and LLP25 of the Local Plan. These require new development to respond to local character. 17. Appeals C and D contain some elements common to Appeal B which I have found acceptable. They also contain some elements common to planning permission Ref 16/0031/FUL which can be implemented regardless of the outcome of these appeals. However, these elements do not outweigh the harm to the appearance of the area arising from the dormer extensions that I have identified above and the consequent conflict with policy. Appeal proposals C and D would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole Appeal B 18. Of the 4 appeals being considered, Appeal B relates most closely to the development permitted by planning permission Ref 16/0031/FUL. Based on the Council’s description, the gables to the front elevation are slightly different to those permitted by planning permission Ref 16/0031/FUL, giving rise to a slight increase in height. I consider that this is not significantly different from the development permitted by planning permission Ref 16/0031/FUL and would not have a harmful effect on the appearance of the area. 19. Appeal B also proposes the retention of the brickwork already used on the front elevation and the use of render as the external finish to the upper parts of the rear and side elevations of No 6. Although there are many similarities between properties on the northern side of Winton Close, there is variation in external materials. At the time of my site visit I noted materials including contrasting brickwork, vertical tile hanging and stone effect facing material. Within this varied context I consider that the brickwork used on the front elevation is not harmful to the appearance of the area. Whilst the brickwork used to the front elevation does not match the existing brickwork of No 6, the use of render would avoid 2 types of brickwork being seen in close comparison. Its use to part of the side and rear elevations would therefore not be harmful to the appearance of the area either. Consequently, Appeal B would accord with Policies LLP1, LLP19 and LLP25 of the Local Plan. Appeal Decisions APP/B0230/D/18/3197247, APP/B0230/D/18/3197253, APP/B0230/D/18/3197251 5 Other matters 20. I note the appellant’s comments on the appeal proposal’s more efficient use of the site to create better living accommodation. However, this does not outweigh the harm to the appearance of the area I have identified. I also note that the appeal site is not within a conservation area or near any listed buildings. However, the development plan requires development to be of an acceptable appearance regardless of its location relative to heritage assets. 21. There is insufficient evidence before me to demonstrate that Appeal B would form a precedent for development that could be harmful to the appearance of the area. The Council would be able to assess any future proposals on their own merits based on the policies and any material considerations relevant at the time. Conclusion and Conditions 22. For the reasons given above, and taking all other matters raised into account, I conclude that Appeals A, C and D should be dismissed and that Appeal B should be allowed. 23. I have considered the conditions the Council requests are imposed if planning permission is granted in respect of Appeal B in light of the guidance contained in the Framework2 and the PPG3. Condition No 1 is the standard time limit condition. As the development has commenced this is not necessary. Condition No 2 is necessary to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. 24. It is necessary to ensure the development has a satisfactory external appearance. As development has commenced and I have found those external materials already used acceptable I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be completed in matching materials. As no render has been used I have imposed a condition requiring approval of a sample panel of this. 25. Condition No 4 relating to the removal of permitted development rights has not been justified and therefore I have not imposed this. Richard Exton INSPECTOR 2 The National Planning Policy Framework. 3 The National Planning Practice Guidance.