Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 March 2019 by Ben Plenty BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4th April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/B0230/D/18/3218569 94 Handcross Road, Luton LU2 8JF • 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 Jay Mackenji against the decision of Luton Council. • The application Ref 18/01154/FULHH, dated 24 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 30 October 2018. • The development proposed is single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed rear extension on: i) the living conditions of occupiers of the existing dwelling in respect of outlook and available garden space, and ii) the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and on the surrounding dwellings. Reasons Living Conditions 3. The appeal site consists of a semi-detached property which has been extended in the past. This includes both a two-storey side extension, with a ‘through- garage’, and a large detached double garage in the rear garden. The through- garage is connected to the outbuilding by a raised driveway. Consequently, both the raised driveway and the outbuilding are elevated above the garden by around half a metre, and steps link these areas down onto the lower patio area. The dwelling has two ground floor windows that serve habitable rooms. These look out onto the patio, and elevated detached garage, and the streetscape beyond. As such, this outlook is affected by the existing outbuilding due to its height and proximity. 4. The proposal would connect the garages. This would further alter and substantially harm the identified outlook, by enclosing this space. Furthermore, the rear garden area would be reduced significantly, putting pressure on the retained space for all private outdoor use. Also, nearly half of the identified retained ‘undeveloped curtilage’ would be on the frontage which could only afford very limited value to occupiers, being in the public realm and largely used as driveways. Appeal Decision APP/B0230/D/18/3218569 2 5. The effect of the proposal on both the outlook and on the available area of private garden space would be substantial. It would be visually intrusive due to its elevated scale and proximity to rear windows. As such, the proposal would materially harm the living conditions of occupiers of the existing dwelling. 6. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to policies LLP1, LLP19 and LLP25 of the Luton Local Plan 2017 (LP), which seek amongst other things, for development to contribute towards a sense of place, to not adversely affect the amenity of nearby occupiers and to be of high-quality design. Furthermore, the proposal would not accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) which seeks to ensure that the likely effects on living conditions are taken into account. Character and appearance 7. The local area is residential in character and consists of brick two-storey houses and taller blocks of flats. The appeal site is within a small cul-de-sac that terminates at a garage court. The site is a corner plot, the existing dwelling is semi-detached and has been extended towards the courtyard. The garden includes a large double garage with a pitched roof that can also be seen from the courtyard. The rear of the property makes a limited contribution to the character and appearance of the area being in a relatively discrete location. 8. The proposal would include a shallow pitched roof, with a box gutter in the centre. Most of the proposal would be behind the existing boundary wall, with a fascia board visible above. Therefore, views from the courtyard would be largely unaffected. However, the proposal would be highly visible from surrounding dwellings, especially No 92. It would also be visible from No 90, but to a lesser extent. 9. Furthermore, the proposal would not reflect the design characteristics of the existing dwelling and would be harmful to its appearance. The proposal would connect the outbuilding to the main dwelling with an unconventional link building, bearing little resemblance to existing features in form or material. Although the proposed flat roof would limit the effect on the street, the resultant design would be at odds with the existing dwelling. As such, the proposal would be a poor addition to the building and a discordant juxtaposition of separate components. Therefore, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area when viewed from surrounding dwellings. 10. Consequently, the proposal would not accord with policies LLP1, LLP19 and LLP25 of the LP, which seek development that contributes towards a sense of place responding to local character, for the scale and mass to be proportionate with the principal dwelling and development to be a high-quality design. The proposal would also not accord with the Framework, which seeks to achieve well-designed places, sympathetic to the local character. Conclusion 11. Having taken all matters raised into consideration, the appeal should be dismissed. Ben Plenty INSPECTOR