Erection of a two storey side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 November 2018 by D J Barnes MBA BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Decision date: 5th Decemeber 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/B0230/D/18/3213210 81 Montrose Avenue, Luton LU3 1HP • 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 Abdul Ghafoor against the decision of Luton Borough Council. • The application Ref 18/00561/FULHH, dated 12 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 5 September 2018. • The development proposed is the erection of a two storey side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling situated within a primarily residential area of similar types of properties and some detached dwellings. A single storey addition and roof dormer have been erected to the rear of the property. To the side is a single storey garage and adjacent to the shared boundary is a detached single storey garage associated with 83 Montrose Avenue. During the site visit it was observed that other dwellings have been altered, including some properties possessing side extensions. 4. The proposed development includes a 2-storey side extension which would replace the existing garage albeit extend further rearwards along the shared boundary with No. 83. At first floor level the flank wall of the proposed extension would be set back from the shared boundary and its front elevation would be set back from that of the host property. The width of the proposed extension is no more than half the width of the original property. Further, the height of this proposed extension would be lower than the ridge of the host property. For these reasons, this element of the appeal scheme would appear subservient in scale to the host property and would be similar in size to other side extensions within the streetscene. 5. By reason of the adjacent detached garage, there would be a wide gap between the flank wall of the side extension and No. 83 at first floor level. As a matter of principle, the retained gap, coupled with its subservient scale, would mean that the proposed side extension would be assimilated into the varied Appeal Decision APP/B0230/D/18/3213210 2 character and appearance of the residential streetscene. This assimilation would be assisted by the proposed bay window at first floor level and use of external materials matching the property. 6. A porch and canopy have been erected and extend across an original bay window and the garage. This canopy is not part of the appeal scheme. However, the appeal scheme does include a flat roof porch and the proposed garage would project forward of the current front elevation. Although the proposed side extension and porch could be acceptable in principle, the forward projection of the garage with its flat roof would not represent high quality design. It would be an unduly conspicuous and incongruous form of development within the streetscene adding unnecessary bulk to the proposed side extension. It was noted that a pitched roof had been erected at No. 79 where a similar front extension has occurred which is other property forming this pair of semi-detached dwelling. 7. At the rear, the property has already been extensively altered by the single storey addition and the roof dormer but there is still some semblance of the original character of the property, especially at first floor level. The proposed 2-storey rear extension would, in part, wrap around the first floor rear elevation and this would further erode the character of the original property. As a consequence of the cumulative and disproportionate scale and bulk of the various alterations the character of the original property would be lost and unbalance the appearance of this pair of semi-detached dwellings. The flat roof element of the rear extension would not represent a positive design approach that would be in keeping with the predominance of pitched roofs of the property and surrounding dwellings above ground floor level. 8. Although some elements of the appeal scheme could individually be acceptable, the ground floor front projection and the rear extension, in particular the flat roof wrap around addition at first floor level, would amount to significant and demonstrable harm. The Council has claimed that if this appeal succeeded then an unwelcome precedent for similar schemes would be established. However, this appeal has been assessed based upon the planning circumstances of the property. 9. It is, therefore, concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene and, as such, it would conflict with Policies LLP19 and LLP25 of the Luton Local Plan (2011-2031). Amongst other matters these policies require high quality design and for extensions to dwellings to be proportionate in scale to the principle properties and to have roof styles and pitches which are in keeping with the original roof. These policies are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to promote high quality design. Accordingly, and taking into account all other matters, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed. D J Barnes INSPECTOR