Installation of external wall insulation/render to improve the thermal efficiency of the dwelling, also to reduce the noise comes from airplanes

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 February 2026 by Andrew Phillips MPlan BA CertHE MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9th March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004462 16 Ereswell Road, Luton LU3 2UH • 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 Daniel Avram against the decision of Luton Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/01033/FULHH. • The development proposed is installation of external wall insulation/render to improve the thermal efficiency of the dwelling, also to reduce the noise comes from airplanes. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. It was noted during my site visit that the external wall insulation/render had been installed. However, the term ‘retrospective’ is not an act of development and on this basis I have not included it in the proposed development description. Applying for development retrospectively should not weigh for or against the proposal. Therefore, this does not affect my decision on this appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the local area and the host property. Reasons 4. The street scene is defined by semi-detached dwellings. This site forms the end of a set of semi-detached dwellings that progressively are set back from the road, with the pair of 14 and 16 Ereswell being the most set back of this group. This set of semi-detached dwellings are based on one dwelling being built of a single brick type, with the other dwelling having the external materials of a mixture of brick colours, white render and timber cladding. The brickwork colours are grey-buff and reddish-brown. 5. The external render of 16 Ereswell has the appearance of a bright red colour brick that has also removed the difference in brickwork colour between the front and publicly viewable side of the dwelling. From the submitted drawings the proposal has replaced the white render and timber cladding with matching materials; though it was noted on site that the timber cladding appears to be of a noticeably different colour to the other properties in this run of semi-detached dwellings. 6. The render provides an alien feature within the local area, which does not preserve the colour pallet of this specific run of semi-detached dwellings or the wider Appeal Decision 6004462 2 collection of semi-detached properties on this street. I also do not consider that this render creates an enhancement to the overall character or appearance of this street scene. 7. I have noted that the appellant is willing to repaint the render to better match the colour scheme in the locality. I have carefully considered this, though on the evidence submitted it is unknown on how practical it would be to paint this render, the effect it would have on the brickwork pattern or the longevity of the paint. I am, therefore, based on the evidence before me not convinced that a condition could be added to provide suitable external materials. However, if there were to be any future re-application, this information should be submitted with the application. 8. I therefore conclude on this matter that the proposal does not have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the local area or to the host property. On this basis, the proposal does not comply with Policies LLP1, LLP19 and LLP25 of the Local Luton Plan 2011-2031 November 2017, which seek in total to provide high quality sustainable healthy places to live, external materials in keeping with the dwelling and local area that also enhances the distinctiveness of the street scene. Other Matters 9. I have noted that the appellant has sought the external render to improve the insulation of the dwelling and improve the health of the occupants. However, given the limited evidence provided I can only give limited weight in favour of the application, which does not overcome the identified harm as detailed above. Conclusion 10. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Andrew Phillips INSPECTOR