Erection of front dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 June 2019 by Jonathan Edwards BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/B0230/D/19/3225334 23, Ashburnham Road, Luton LU1 1JN • 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 Nadeem Raja against the decision of Luton Borough Council. • The application Ref 18/01513/FULHH, dated 27 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 7 January 2019. • The development proposed is erection of front dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was revised on 19 February 2019 and this post-dates the Council’s refusal notice. I have considered the Framework as part of the determination of this appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Rothesay Conservation Area (CA). Reasons 4. The appeal site is located within the CA. As such I have had regard to the duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area as set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 5. The CA includes a cemetery, recreation ground and parts of surrounding streets. From my observations, the significance of the CA is partly the sense of openness created by the cemetery and recreation ground in an area where housing is dense. The land rises from the recreation ground towards the cemetery and ground levels of buildings on surrounding streets reflect this sloping topography. The resulting prominence of some of the buildings, as well as the architecturally interesting style of housing and presence of mature trees all create an attractive environment that adds to the significance of the CA. 6. The appeal relates to a semi-detached house that lies within a group of similarly designed properties. All these houses face Ashburnham Road and are set above street level. Whilst alterations have resulted in some differences in appearance, the front elevations of these properties display attractive common features, such as a brick oval window over the front door and a 2-storey high Appeal Decision APP/B0230/D/19/3225334 2 projecting bay. The features of architectural interest and similarity in form result in the row of houses, including the appeal site, contributing positively to the significance, character and appearance of the area. 7. The proposed dormer window would be positioned in the front facing roof- slope. There is no significant screening to the front of the appeal property meaning most of its principal elevation and roof slope can be seen from the street and from properties on the opposite side of the road. Whilst set below the ridge line, the dormer window would affect the appearance of the front of the house and how the property is seen from the street and properties opposite. 8. The dormer window would be positioned directly above a hipped roof feature that projects out over the bay window. Being flat roofed, the dormer would be at odds with the hipped roof projection as well as the pitched main roof. Also, its relatively low height compared to its width would give the dormer window a horizontal emphasis. This would be at odds with the 2-storey bay window which provides a vertical emphasis to the front elevation of the house. For these reasons, and despite its modest scale and the use of matching materials, the dormer window would appear awkward and a discordant feature on the front of the house. 9. Rooflights have been inserted in several of the front roof-slopes of the group of houses in which the appeal property lies. However, the proposed dormer window would project noticeably beyond the roof plane and more so than any of these rooflights. Also being the only dormer window seen on the front roof- slope in the group of houses, the proposed development would stand out as being an incongruous feature. For these reasons, it would undermine the attractive commonality which is a positive feature of this part of the CA. 10. Whilst front dormer windows can be seen on properties on the opposite side of the street, these houses lie outside the CA and are of different design and appearance. As such, these dormers have a different effect on the appearance of the properties and street scene compared to the appeal proposal and do not directly affect the character and appearance of the CA. 11. I have considered the appellant’s comments and Council’s concern about precedent. Whilst each application and appeal must be treated on its individual merits, I can appreciate the Council’s concern that approval of the dormer could be used in support of others. I consider this is not a generalised fear of precedent, but a realistic and specific concern due to the number of properties with similar roofs. Allowing this appeal would make it more difficult to resist further planning applications for similar developments and their cumulative effect would exacerbate the harm which I describe above. 12. As highlighted by the appellant, the proposal would respect gaps between properties. However, this consideration fails to alter my view that the proposal, for the reasons as set out above, would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA. 13. For the purposes of the Framework, the CA is a designated heritage asset. For the reasons set out above, the proposal would harm the appearance and character of the CA. As the dormer would be a minor addition to a single dwelling, I consider it would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA. The Framework indicates that such harm is to be Appeal Decision APP/B0230/D/19/3225334 3 weighed against the public benefits of a proposal. However, great weight should be given to an asset’s conservation. 14. The proposed development would lead to no harm being caused to the living conditions of the occupiers of any nearby property. However, the lack of harm in this regard is a neutral factor that is not a public benefit of the scheme. I find no public benefit to outweigh the harm. 15. Reference is made to paragraph 118(e) of the Framework. This states that planning decisions should support opportunities to use the airspace above existing residential premises for new homes, in particular upward extensions where the development would be consistent with the prevailing form of neighbouring properties and overall street scene. The proposed development would not result in a new home and would not represent an upward projection. In any case, I have found the development would be inconsistent with the prevailing form of neighbouring properties which is a requirement of paragraph 118 and as such the proposal is not in accordance with this part of the Framework. 16. Consequently, the proposal fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Therefore, it would be contrary to Policies LLP1, LLP19, LLP25 and LLP30 of the Luton Local Plan 2017, which aim, amongst other things, to ensure that development proposals are of high quality design, to conserve and enhance heritage assets and to ensure development integrates with its surroundings. Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed. Jonathan Edwards INSPECTOR