Appeal 6002084

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development differs between the application form and the decision notice. The description used in the banner header above has been taken from the application form.

The main issues are: • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the wider street scene; and, • Whether the development would adversely affect a protected species.

The appeal property is one of four houses in a terrace of two-storey dwellings. It is located in a predominantly residential area consisting of rows of similarly designed properties, the majority having hipped roofs and faced in a combination of red brick and cladding or render. Whilst the buildings immediately to the east and south differ in their use, scale and appearance, the distinctive character of the area is derived from the similarity in appearance of the majority of the surrounding residential properties. Each terrace has a distinctive centrally positioned two-storey forward projection, subservient recessed sections and projecting ‘bookends’. Many have single storey front extensions attached to the central projections, but these do not detract from the over-riding form and character of the terraces.

The appearance of the terrace containing the appeal property differs from the majority in that the central forward projection has a gabled roof. The two central properties in the terrace, nos 12 & 14, are clad in grey external insulation and the adjoining house at no 16 has been extended by the addition of a two-storey hipped roof extension infilling the L-shape at the front of that house. Notwithstanding these differences, the overall character of the terrace has a cohesive form, similar to the surrounding properties, retaining its dominant central projection and subservient wings.

The proposals would replace the existing single storey projection and provide for a two-storey front extension filling the L-shape at the front of the house, extending as far sideways as the ginnel providing rear access, and as far forward as the front elevation of the two-storey central projection. A hipped roof is proposed, its ridge aligning with that of the main roof linking the terrace and set lower than the ridge of the forward projection. Whilst not referenced in the description of development, the plans indicate a proposed mono-pitched canopy roof across the front of the existing and proposed elements of the house.

Whilst the front extension at no 16 has had some effect on the form and appearance of the row, the essential characteristics of the terrace described above remain. The further in-filling of the frontage by the proposed development would, however, erode that remaining character to a harmful extent, creating a singular frontage devoid of the visual relief afforded by the existing set-back. The conflicting roof designs of the neighbouring extension and the appeal proposals would result in a discordant roofscape, further eroding the character and form of the terrace.

As a consequence, the bulk and mass of the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and diminish its contribution to the appearance, character and form of the terrace. The resultant terrace would be significantly at odds with the distinctive form and character of the surrounding properties. As such it would conflict with Policy CS3 of the Leicester City Core Strategy (2014) (LCCS) which, amongst other things, requires high-quality, well-designed developments that contribute positively to the character and appearance of the built environment.

The application included a preliminary bat roost assessment and breeding bird survey prepared by a suitably qualified ecologist in July 2025. The assessment refers to evidence held by the Leicestershire and Rutland Environmental Records Centre of several records of bats within a 1km radius of the site.

Whilst the assessment and survey found no evidence of nesting birds in the garden and low potential for bat roosts in the roof structure of the house, it concluded that potential bat access points existed. To rule out the existence of a roost and allow a thorough assessment of the impact of the development, the assessment required that a bat emergence survey was carried out. No such survey was provided to the council prior to it determining the application. I note that the appellants advise that an emergence survey has been undertaken but I have not been provided with this. Consequently, I cannot therefore have regard to its conclusions in my assessment or appropriately apply the principles set out in paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

All species of bat are protected by law under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Paragraph 99 of Circular 06/2005: “Biodiversity and Geological Conservation” states that it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by proposed development is established before planning permission is granted. In the absence of full survey work identified by the appellant’s ecologist as being essential, I cannot be certain of the presence or otherwise of a bat roost nor, should one exist, the likely harm caused to it by the development.

The proposals therefore conflict with Policy 17 of the LCCS, which requires ecological surveys and assessments to be undertaken to establish the presence or absence of protected species, and the requirements of the Circular. Even had the appellants provided me with a copy of the emergence survey, this would not have affected the outcome of the appeal given the harm I have found in relation to character and appearance.

For the reasons given above, the proposals do not accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations that indicate I should take a decision other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.