Appeal 6003524

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for construction of first floor extension to rear of existing house (Class C3); construction of 1 additional self-build two storey dwelling (1x3bed) with parking and landscaping at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20250969, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

In the interests of conciseness, I have utilised the description of development as found on the decision notice. The description given in the application form contains superfluous information.

The appeal site is located within the Stoneygate Conservation Area (CA). Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. I have had due regard to this duty within my decision.

The proposal includes the construction of a first‐floor rear extension to No. 23. However, the decision notice and accompanying evidence make clear that the reason for refusal relates specifically to the proposed new dwelling. [name] have considered the scheme in its entirety, my assessment has focused primarily on the dwelling element, as this is the component that relates to the identified reason for refusal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character or appearance of the CA.

The appeal is accompanied by the Stoneygate Conservation Area Character Appraisal. The appraisal notes that Stoneygate is Leicester’s best-preserved Victorian suburb, distinguished by its concentration of late Victorian and Edwardian houses built in the fashionable [name] style. It is characterised by a consistent architectural palette, predominantly red brick, slate and timber, across buildings of varying size and type. Its distinctive skyline, marked by gables, turrets, dormers and ornate chimneys, adds further visual richness. Mature trees are another defining feature, with tree‐lined streets and well‐planted gardens creating a verdant setting throughout. As such, the significance of the CA is derived from its architectural quality and leafy setting.

[site address] is an inter‐war dwelling that exhibits little of the architectural character that underpins the significance of the CA. As a later addition, its appearance does not closely reflect the prevailing historic qualities of the surrounding area. Nevertheless, it does not detract from the overall significance of the CA. Rather, it makes a negligible, but positive contribution to it.

The proposed development would occupy the footprint of the existing garage, following its demolition. It would be physically attached to No. 23. The restricted width of the plot, combined with the building’s proximity to the boundary with No. 21, would result in a dwelling that appears uncomfortably constrained within the site. The use of a flat roof at a two‐storey height is wholly at odds with the prevailing pitched roof forms that define this part of the CA. At this height, the building would exceed the eaves level of neighbouring traditional properties, creating a visually intrusive and discordant presence within the street scene. The proposed tall, contemporary glazed openings would further accentuate its incompatibility, standing in stark contrast to the traditional fenestration and detailing characteristics of [address].

Collectively, these design elements would result in a development that significantly fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Such a development would represent a profoundly inappropriate and visually discordant addition to [address]. The harm arising from the proposal is less than substantial, to which it would sit at the upper end of that scale due to the extent of conflict with the area’s established architectural form and historic character.

To conclude, the proposed development would conflict with Policies CS03, CS08 and CS18 of the [name] 2014 (CS). Collectively, these policies seek for development to enhance the historic environment through appropriate design, ensuring that the high architectural quality or significant local distinctiveness, such as that found within the CA, is retained, with any new development being sympathetic to its location.

The harm to the CA as a result of the proposed development would be less than substantial, at the upper end of that scale, as set out in the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Framework makes clear that great weight should be afforded to the conservation of heritage assets. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that such harm be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

It is acknowledged that the development would contribute to the overall housing supply. In a period of sustained housing pressure, the delivery of even a single dwelling carries some limited, yet positive weight. There would also be short‐term economic benefits and employment during construction, and future occupants would contribute to local expenditure once the dwelling is occupied.

In this case, the identified public benefits, taken together, do not outweigh the harm that would result to the character or appearance of the CA. In the absence of any significant public benefit, I conclude that, on balance, the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Accordingly, the scheme conflicts with the approach to heritage assets set out in Section 16 of the Framework. As such, the Framework does not lend support to the proposal through the application of the public benefits to this heritage balance.

However, Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, and the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

I have been presented with a fallback position in the form of a two‐storey side extension to [site address] , granted planning permission by the Council in May 2025. That permission remains extant for three years. Although the development had not commenced at the time of my site visit, the remaining period for implementation is significant. I therefore consider there to be a highly realistic prospect that the fallback scheme would be carried out should this appeal fail. The approved extension adopts a design that is almost identical to the dwelling now proposed, a point acknowledged within the officer report.

Notwithstanding this similarity, the Council maintains that each application must be determined on its own merits, but relies on a dismissed appeal at [address] to support its position. The Council argues that the previously approved extension at No. 23 was considered acceptable only because it functioned as an extension to the host dwelling, not as an independent residential unit, and that different design solutions are required where a building is intended to operate as a separate dwelling.

I have therefore examined the operational differences between the permitted extension and the proposed dwelling. [name] recognise that an extension and a dwelling serve different planning purposes, the Council make the case that the distinction lies almost entirely in use rather than appearance.

In practical terms, from my assessment of both schemes, I note that the occupants of this proposal would enter through a designated front door, store waste in bins within their own front garden space and have a separate rear garden. This rear garden would be the most significant indicator of a difference between this proposal and the fallback position. However, it would be visible only in a limited and indirect manner and would not materially alter how the building is experienced within the street scene. Overall, these are tenuous differences between each application in this specific case.

In returning to the cited appeal decision, the Inspector observed that the Council had afforded design concessions to the earlier annexe proposal because of its visual and functional association with the host dwelling. The annexe and main house would be read together, with the annexe appearing as a converted garage rather than an independent unit in this cited appeal.

The Council’s justification for permitting the extension at No. 23 within their officer report is that it was described as a sophisticated piece of contextual design that referenced the host building and remained subservient to it. Yet, the development subject of this appeal was deemed to fail to assimilate with the character of the street scene, due to its cramped appearance.

The approved extension is almost identical in form to the dwelling now proposed. It would exceed the eaves height of the existing house and introduce a flat‐roofed, two‐storey mass within a constrained plot, resulting in a structure that would dominate the host property rather than read as subordinate to it. The only element of the previously approved extension and the proposal before me that could be described as even mildly subservient is the modest setback from the front elevation of the host property. However, this is far too limited to persuade me that the built form, in either iteration, could reasonably be regarded as subservient overall.

Given this analysis, and the earlier findings in my decision on this appeal proposal, I cannot agree with the view presented by the Council that the approved extension would be subservient or contextually appropriate. In its approved form, it would create a dominant and visually intrusive addition, far exceeding what would ordinarily be expected of a domestic extension. In this context, given what has been allowed, this leads me to the conclusion that the design rationale of the extension would dictate that it would more than likely be expected to be a residential dwelling, not an extension to one.

Furthermore, in the cited appeal decision, the Inspector made clear that the acceptability of the annexe was dependent on its reliance on the host dwelling, particularly given the substandard living conditions it would otherwise have provided. In contrast, the Council accepts that the proposed dwelling here would meet the [name] and would provide acceptable levels of outlook, privacy and natural light. It would be fully capable of functioning independently, without reliance on No. 23.

Taking all of these factors together, I find that in this specific case there would be no meaningful difference in how the development would appear or be operated, whether as an extension or as a dwelling. The built form would be virtually identical in either scenario, and the behaviour of its occupants would be broadly comparable between either scheme. There are no material differences of such significant weight, in either the design of the scheme or how it would operate as an extension or as a dwelling, which lead me to the conclusion that this fallback position is one that should be offered limited weight. Accordingly, I attach substantial weight to the fallback position in favour of this proposal, in determining this appeal.

Comments have been made by interested parties in response to this appeal. Some of the content of these comments relate to the main issue of this appeal and therefore, I have not expanded on them further.

With regards to parking issues within the vicinity, the Council noted that the proposal would not comply with the parking standards applicable to this scheme but considered that the provision of on-street parking in this location would be sufficient. Although my site visit only a provided a snapshot in time, I did not note any significant parking pressure as to disagree with this assessment.

Concern has been raised that this development would set a precedent for similar development within the area. Each planning application must be decided on its own merits. Furthermore, in this decision, I have given substantial weight to a previously approved fallback position that has been established. It does not follow that each case would present these exact circumstances. As a consequence of this alleged precedent, it is also suggested that families would be priced out of purchasing properties in the area due to the financial capability of property developers who may outbid them. In this instance, I note that the appeal is made to construct a self-build dwelling, which is set out and would be secured within a [name].

The Council did indicate which conditions it wanted to be considered in the event that the appeal was allowed. In my assessment of these conditions, I have had regard to the six tests for imposing planning conditions.

In addition to the statutory time condition [1], a condition specifying the approved plans [2] are justified in the interests of certainty. It is necessary for the parking space to be laid out [3], that footway crossings are provided [4] and that a clear area of visibility is provided [5] prior to the occupation of the development to ensure that vehicle parking and access can be carried out satisfactorily and safely. Condition 3 has not included an element on water discharge from the site to the highway, as suggested by the Council. This is covered in a later condition.

A condition which requires the details of bicycle parking to be submitted to and approved in writing [6] is necessary in ensuring that the development would provide appropriate storage facilities for sustainable transportation. This condition has been adapted from the suggestion by the Council. The suggestion offered by the Council mentions details which have been previously approved. As these details likely relate to another application, it is important that these are clarified and the storage provided prior to the occupation of the development.

To ensure that the development and the site is drained appropriately, where it would not be discharged onto the highway, a condition which requires the submission of drainage details [7] is necessary. The submission of further protected species surveys [8], if the development does not commence within a certain timeframe, is necessary to ensure that protected species are not negatively affected by the development of the scheme and are mitigated for accordingly. In the interests of visual amenity, a materials condition [9] is necessary.

While the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, the fallback position before me is of such significance that it materially alters the outcome of this proposal. I am without a doubt that the proposed development would conflict with the CS, as it would result in a form of development that demonstrably fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

However, the fallback scheme presented, to which the Council have previously permitted, is of such substantial weight that it represents a material consideration of such importance to justify a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. When this realistic fallback is considered alongside the public benefits of the proposal, albeit these being extremely limited benefits, I conclude that material considerations indicate that planning permission should nevertheless be granted. The appeal is therefore allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawing numbers: • PL-00-001 REV PL04 (Proposed – Site Plan) • PL-00-100 REV PL05 (Proposed – Ground Floor Plan) • PL-00-101 REV PL05 (Proposed – First Floor Plan) • PL-00-103 REV PL04 (Proposed – Roof Plan) • PL-00-200 REV PL04 (Proposed – Elevations)

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the vehicle parking spaces have been provided, surfaced in a solid bound material, in accordance with [name]-00-100 REV PL05. Thereafter those spaces shall be retained for the parking of vehicles only.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until footway crossings have been provided at each vehicular access, in accordance with the [address] [name] (June 2020). These measures shall be retained for the lifetime of the development.

Prior to any works commencing on site, the entire site frontage shall be cleared, and maintained thereafter clear, of any obstruction exceeding 600mm in height for a distance of 2m into the site from the highway boundary, in order to maximise the visibility and pedestrian intervisibility available to a driver emerging onto the public highway. These measures shall be retained for the lifetime of the development.

The development shall not be occupied until the details of secure and covered bicycle parking have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the development, in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be kept available for the storage of bicycles for the lifetime of the development.

Prior to the commencement of development, details of foul and surface water drainage, avoiding any spill onto the highway, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. No property shall be occupied until the drainage has been installed in accordance with the approved details. It shall be retained and maintained thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

Should the development not commence within 12 months of the date of the last protected species survey (23/07/2025), then a further protected species survey shall be carried out of all buildings by a suitably qualified ecologist. The survey results and any revised mitigation shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority and any identified mitigation measures carried out in accordance with the approved plan. Thereafter the survey should be repeated every 12 months and any mitigation measures reviewed by the LPA until the development commences.

No development above ground level shall take place until the details of all external facing materials, including their specification, mortar colour, bond and spacing, where applicable, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.