Appeal 6003235

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a double storey side extension and single storey rear extension with pitched roof at [site address] , Thurmaston, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/2170/2, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings labelled “Location Plan” (dated 21.10.25), “Block Plan”, “[name]” (dated 16.4.25), “[name] and Elevations” (dated 16.4.25).

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The council has now adopted the Charnwood Local Plan 2021-2037 which replaces the Charnwood Local Plan Core Strategy 2011-2028 and the saved policies of the Charnwood Local Plan 2004. Both parties make reference to emerging Policy DS5: [name] in their submissions. This policy has now been adopted as Policy DS4 with a modification to include an additional bullet point relating to the need to conserve, restore and enhance the natural environment. As this additional requirement of the policy is not determinative in relation to the development proposed, I have assessed the appeal in relation to Policy DS4 of the newly adopted Local Plan without inviting comments from the parties.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed two-storey side extension on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the wider street scene.

The appeal property is a semi-detached, two-storey dwellinghouse located on the southern side of [address], a residential street consisting of a mix of single and two-storey properties. Nos 27 and 29 form one of four semi-detached pairs of houses at the eastern end of the road. Each pair are generally of consistent appearance, set on a uniform building line behind a combination of driveways and lawned front gardens. Each property has a single, flat-roofed garage with some being sited alongside the dwelling and others set further back.

A single-storey pitched-roofed rear extension is proposed. The council raises no concerns in respect of the rear extension, and I find no reason to disagree with that conclusion.

I have been provided with the council’s Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This recommends that two-storey side extensions are designed to incorporate a set-back and a drop in ridge where gaps between properties are important to local character, to overcome any potential for a “terracing effect”. The street scene along this part of [address] fits these circumstances.

The council is concerned that the proposed two-storey side extension would harm the rhythm of the street scene, interrupting the consistent spacing between dwellings and would unbalance the host dwelling. However, the proposed two-storey side extension would be set back from the frontage of the house with a ridge line lower than the main roof. In achieving the design objectives of the SPD, the extension would appear subordinate to the host dwelling. The set-back would reduce its prominence, and in views along the row, would reduce the potential for a harmful closing of the gap between nos 27 and 25, maintaining a sense of openness between the properties. Design details of the extension, including fenestration, would reflect those of the existing property. Paragraph 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires decision makers to attribute great weight to development which reflects local design guidance including SPDs.

I observed during my site visit that a two-storey extension of similar size and appearance has been built at no [address], and the evidence suggests that this was granted planning permission by the council. Like the appeal proposals, this extension incorporates a set-back and a drop in ridge which have successfully achieved the objectives of the SPD in reducing its impact on the spacious rhythm and appearance of the street. The similarities between the cases are clear.

In following the council’s design guidance, the effect of the appeal proposals on the host dwelling and the street scene would be mitigated to an acceptable degree. In views along the street, the spacious character of the pairs of semi-detached houses would be adequately preserved. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy DS4 of the Charnwood Local Plan 2021-2037 which, amongst other things, requires development to respect the character of the area with regard to scale, height and materials.

Having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance, in addition to the standard implementation condition, it would be necessary in the interests of certainty to define the plans with which the scheme should accord. I shall also require that external facing materials used in the construction of the extensions match those of the existing dwelling in the interests of the appearance of the dwelling and wider street scene.

I have found that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the wider street scene and would accord with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be allowed.