Rear dormer and two front rooflights to facilitate a loft conversion and alterations to fenestration

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 February 2025 by D J Barnes MBA BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 06 March 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/B0230/D/24/3354430 53 Dewsbury Road, Luton LU3 2HH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Naser Khan against the decision of Luton Borough Council. • The application Ref is 24/00861/FULHH. • The development is the erection of a rear dormer and two front rooflights to facilitate a loft conversion and alterations to fenestration. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The development subject of this appeal has been undertaken. 3. The revised National Planning Policy Framework was published in December 2024 but does not raise any new matters which affect the assessment of this appeal scheme. Main Issue 4. It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Reasons 5. The development includes the erection of a roof extension at the rear of a 2-storey terrace dwelling situated within a primarily residential area. The surrounding area is a mix of houses and flat but the buildings are generally 2-storeys in height comprising terraces and semi-detached properties. These properties possess gable roof forms. From what could be observed from the roads, some of the dwellings have been altered, including by the erection of rear roof extensions with rooflights within their front roof slopes. However, these roof additions do not project above the ridgeline of the host properties. 6. By reason of its size and design, the roof of the dormer extension, which has been erected, projects above the ridgeline of the appeal property. When taken together with the dormer’s width, the degree of projection is such that the appeal scheme is a visually conspicuous and incongruous feature within the streetscene which fails to reflect the character and appearance of the roofscape of the surrounding properties. Further, because of its height and width the rear roof extension has the Appeal Decision APP/B0230/D/24/3354430 2 character of a third storey being added to the host property rather than being a subservient addition. 7. For the reasons given, it is concluded that the development does cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene and, as such, it conflicts with Policies LLP19 and LLP25 of the Luton Local Plan (LP). Amongst other matters, these policies seek to secure a high quality of design, including developments responding positively to the character of an area by reason of streetscene, scale and heights. Further, for the scale and design of extensions to be consistent with the principal dwelling and for the roof style and pitch to be in keeping with the original roof. LP Policy LLP1 is not considered to be of direct relevance to the appeal scheme because it concerns a generic presumption in favour of sustainable development. Other Matters 8. The appellant has provided information about the health condition of a family member and an explanation about the need for additional space for other family members to support the claim that the roof extension is necessary. There is also reference to the original advice of the builders, the financial cost of altering the extension, the effect of reducing the scale of the dormer on the available head height and the disruption which would be caused to the family if further building works had to be undertaken. 9. Although these personal circumstances have been carefully considered, they have only been given moderate weight in the determination of this appeal. Accordingly, as other material considerations they do not outweigh either the unacceptable harm which has been identified nor the conflict with the relevant development plan policies. Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed. D J Barnes INSPECTOR