Appeal 3334260

The appeal is dismissed.

The neighbouring property, [address] has an extant planning permission for a two-storey side extension1. There is no evidence that its implementation is not going to occur within the lifetime of the permission (17/11/2025). This is a material consideration. The effect of the approved extension at [address] has been taken into account in reaching my decision.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was updated on 19 December 2023. In this instance I have not sought comments as the paragraph that the Council refers to in the reason for refusal remains, albeit with different numbering.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

[site address] is a semi-detached dwelling in an elevated position set back from the road in a row of similar properties. [address] retains a strong pattern and “rhythm” formed by well-balanced semi-detached houses and the space in between them. The consequent spacious character and appearance of the 1 P/22/1123/2 ( the extant planning permission) rhythm of the street scene remains substantially intact in both [address] and other streets in the local area. The appeal property and the attached [address] are of a similar design with small narrow two storey extensions set a large distance from the front of the house. In addition, both are sited some distance from their side boundaries, albeit No 4 has a small car port at ground level. Nevertheless, the building form and siting contributes positively to the open character and appearance.

The two-storey extension by reason of its width, form, large mass and scale, would significantly unbalance the two attached houses, given it would be considerably larger than the extension at No 6 and would extend up to the boundary with No 2. As a result, it would detrimentally affect the symmetry of the semi-detached dwelling (4&[address]). Such symmetry is a recognisable and dominant feature of the character of the dwellings on [address].

At the front, the regular gaps between the buildings are important to the character of the area in maintaining the rhythm of the street scene and the characteristic open character. If the proposals under the extant planning permission were to be built, the appeal proposal would result in the loss of the important gap between 2 and [site address] . Even though No 4 is set forward of No 2, this would disrupt the pattern of development in the street scape, eroding openness, and create a terraced effect causing harm to the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, while the Design Supplementary Planning Document adopted in 2020 (the SPD) advocates setting back an extension to avoid terracing effects, the example shown shows a large gap between the properties and differing roof forms which would not be the case here.

I acknowledge that the extension under the extant permission would be similar to that proposed here. However, in that instance the adjoined property also had a large side extension and so the building as a whole was not materially unbalanced. Furthermore, a gap would have been maintained to No 4 retaining the characteristic openness.

For the reasons above I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy CS2 of the Charnwood Local Plan 2011-2028 [name], saved policies EV/1 and H17 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan (2004), emerging Policy DS5 of the Draft Charnwood Local Plan 2021-2037, the SPD and paragraph 139 of the Framework. Together these require that development is of high design quality which responds positively to its context and surroundings by respecting and enhancing the character of the area having regard to, amongst other things, massing, scale and layout. Furthermore, new extensions should remain compatible in scale, mass and design with the original dwelling.

The appellant refers to [name] a listed building [name] sited to the rear of the appeal site. They conclude that the proposal causes no harm to the significance of the building. From my observations on site, I see no reason to disagree. While it would block the occasional glimpse of the Hall from [address], this view does not contribute in any great way to the significance of the building.

For the above reasons I find that the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations that outweigh the harm caused by the proposal. I hereby dismiss the appeal.