Appeal 6003997

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal has been accompanied by an amended proposed elevation plan and a draft Noise Management Plan. These submissions have been submitted to address discrepancies within the application plans and to address how noise could be managed. These submissions do not change the nature of the proposed development. The Council and any interested parties have also been given the opportunity to comment on these submissions through this appeal process. Therefore, I have accepted these submissions, and have utilised them to come to my decision.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development upon: • the character and appearance of the host building and the area; and, • the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, with specific regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal site comprises a modest, single‐storey detached dwelling with a hipped roof, accompanied by a simple garage positioned along the shared boundary with the neighbouring property. The buildings are set well back from [address], benefitting from a substantial area of hardstanding to the front. To the rear, a notably deep garden provides a significant separation between the appeal property and the dwellings and gardens located along [address]. The surrounding area exhibits a varied mix of residential built form, including single‐storey detached bungalows such as the appeal property, as well as detached, semi‐detached, and terraced dwellings. [name] is also situated within the immediate vicinity.

The proposal is accompanied by a footprint overlay plan illustrating both the existing footprint and the extent of the proposed rearward extensions. The overall footprint of the extensions would be broadly comparable in area to that of the existing dwelling, and the depth of the rearward projection would be markedly greater than the current rear outrigger.

When assessed against the established pattern of development in the wider area, it is clear that the proposed projection would extend substantially further than any neighbouring property. While surrounding dwellings differ in form from the appeal property, this does not diminish the fact that the scale and depth of the proposed additions would constitute an excessive and disproportionate enlargement. The resulting built form would overwhelm the modest host building and introduce a visually dominant and incongruous feature. Rear extensions are present within the locality, but none approach the scale of this proposal. The development would therefore represent an uncharacteristically large and visually intrusive addition that fails to respect the prevailing character of the area.

It is asserted that the proposed extensions would be screened from the public realm and therefore not visible. I do not accept this. Owing to their substantial size, depth and overall massing, the extensions would be clearly perceptible from numerous rearward viewpoints from properties along [address] and [address]. This represents a considerable number of dwellings. Although these are not public vantage points, they are nonetheless legitimate viewpoints from which the development would be experienced, and from which its excessive depth and discordant relationship with the host building would be readily apparent.

Furthermore, the properties along [address], specifically Nos. 77, 79, 81 and 83, would have direct views of the full side elevation of the proposed extension. From these positions, the uncharacteristically large and visually dominant form of the development would be unmistakable. When viewed from Nos. 155, 159 and [address], the substantial depth of the proposed extensions would present as a footprint far exceeding what is ordinarily associated within a residential context. The scale and bulk of the extension would overwhelm the modest proportions of the existing dwelling, resulting in a structure that appears disproportionately large and entirely out of keeping with the character and grain of development in the area.

Given the proposed increase in occupants and the staff required to support the intended use, it is accepted that the development must provide adequate parking provision. The Council estimates that, in its current form, the dwelling would typically generate demand for around two vehicles. In contrast, the proposed parking layout plan provides seven marked spaces and a loading bay. The applicant contends that the use would generally involve three staff members on site, with only limited overlap during shift changes, and suggests that both staff and visitors may utilise sustainable modes of transport. Visitor access is also proposed to be managed through an appointment‐based system.

However, the number of spaces provided would enable a significantly higher level of vehicle activity than is ordinarily associated with a residential property of this scale. Even if visitor numbers were strictly controlled and a log of visits made a requirement by a planning condition, there remains a realistic scenario in which at least four vehicles would be parked to the front of the site once staff parking is taken into account.

Moreover, the formalised layout of the proposed parking arrangement, with multiple delineated bays and a loading area, as detailed on the proposed plans, would fundamentally alter the character of the frontage. Rather than reflecting the informal and domestic appearance typical of a dwelling, the arrangement would introduce a distinctly commercial character that would be at odds with the residential context of [address].

My attention now turns to the proposed alterations to the roofscape. While the revised roof form would represent a noticeable increase in scale compared with the existing arrangement, it would nonetheless retain a hipped profile in an area characterised by a clear variety of roof forms and building designs. I am also mindful that the appeal property benefits from a substantial setback from [address], meaning the altered roofscape would be perceived from an atypically long viewing distance by most passersby. As a result, the degree of change proposed would not, in my view, give rise to unacceptable harm to the character or appearance of either the host dwelling or the wider street scene, with regard to this specific design element.

To conclude, the excessive scale of the proposed extensions, combined with the distinctly commercial character created by the extensive parking provision at the front of the site, would result in a form of development that is in conflict with CS Policy 3 of the [site address] [name] 2014 (CS). This policy requires new development to respond positively to its surroundings by demonstrating an appropriate relationship to scale, urban form and massing, and by ensuring that car parking is integrated in a manner that does not detract from the appearance of the area, amongst other things.

The personal characteristics and behaviours typically associated with occupants of a C2 use can give rise to levels of noise that exceed those ordinarily generated by a C3 residential use. Such noise may include sudden impacts, banging, or other disruptive outbursts. During the application stage of this appeal, the Council’s Noise Pollution Officer provided comments noting that no information had been submitted to address or mitigate the potential noise impacts arising from a C2 use.

The appellant has therefore submitted a draft Noise Management Plan to address this issue as part of the appeal. Having reviewed this document, I find that it is predominantly reactive rather than preventative in its approach to noise generation. Several of the proposed measures, such as providing a dedicated email address and telephone number for neighbours to report concerns, are focused on responding to complaints after noise has occurred. The plan also places a considerable burden on neighbouring occupiers to raise issues, which relies heavily on their willingness and confidence to engage with staff or management. This may not always be the case.

While the plan refers to the installation of double glazing to reduce noise transmission, this would not mitigate situations where residents are outdoors or where windows are open. Consequently, I am not persuaded that the draft Noise Management Plan would adequately address the potential for noise associated with the proposed C2 use. Its emphasis is on managing complaints once noise has arisen, rather than implementing measures to prevent such noise from occurring in the first instance.

Despite the shortcomings of the draft Noise Management Plan, I acknowledge that it has been submitted in draft form and is therefore capable of amendment. The parties, however, disagree on whether it would be appropriate to require the submission of a formal management plan by way of a planning condition. The Council contends that imposing such a condition would fail to satisfy the six statutory tests for planning conditions.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) identifies a range of proactive mitigation measures that can be employed to reduce the impact of noise, including designing the development to minimise noise transmission, introducing physical noise barriers, optimising sound insulation, and addressing noise at its source. These are all measures that could reasonably be incorporated into a comprehensive noise management plan and the development of the scheme. The PPG also confirms that planning conditions can be an appropriate mechanism for mitigating noise impacts. Taken together, this guidance supports the view that a condition requiring the submission of a noise management plan, one that focuses on proactively preventing noise through design and operational mitigation, would be both reasonable and enforceable in this case.

Therefore, while the draft Noise Management Plan does not alleviate my concerns regarding potential noise generation due to its largely reactive nature, I recognise that it is subject to revision. In this context, I consider that an appropriately worded planning condition requiring the submission of a revised management plan, one that provides comprehensive detail on measures to be embedded within the design and operation of the scheme to limit noise at its source, would satisfy the six tests for planning conditions. Such measures would also be enforceable, as the specific requirements set out in the approved management plan would need to be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development and adhered to once operational.

To conclude, subject to the imposition of an appropriate planning condition and the incorporation of sufficient design‐led measures to mitigate noise at its source, I am satisfied that the proposed development would comply with Policies PS10 and PS11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan 2006. Taken together, these policies seek to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, including in relation to noise and other potential disturbances.

I have found conflict with the CS on matters which relate to character and appearance. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 outlines that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Framework indicates that a decision should be taken in accordance with the development plan.

I acknowledge that the appeal site is located within an accessible location with a close connection to the city of Leicester. It would provide a location for vulnerable people to live through specialist housing. There would be economic benefit through the construction of the development, which would be followed through its day-to-day operation. These benefits attract limited, but positive weight. The compliance of the scheme on other matters relevant to the development plan is an absence of harm.

However, in my overall consideration of the scheme, these benefits do not outweigh the harm and conflict with the development plan, to which I have identified relevant policies in relation to the matter of character and appearance. There are no material considerations of such weight or significance before me as to justify a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons above, the appeal should be dismissed.