Appeal 6004268

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has submitted an amended plan in support of the appeal. The Planning Appeals Procedural Guide makes it clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. In this case, the amended plan would materially alter the design of the first-floor extension and consequently its effect on the host property and the street scene. On this basis, if I were to accept the plan, it may cause prejudice to other parties, and I have therefore not done so.

In light of the above, the main issues are the effect of the proposed extensions on; • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and • the living conditions of existing and future occupiers of the property, with particular regard to private amenity space.

The appeal property is positioned within a relatively new development in a [name] area. It is a contemporary detached dwelling, built around 2024 and like the surrounding dwellings, it is constructed in brick. The house itself is distinctly separate from the neighbouring properties; positioned on a corner turning plot this design feature occurs throughout the development where the layout changes direction. It shares the form of the corresponding property on the opposite corner, which provides an appealing sense of symmetry. The house occupies a visually prominent corner plot and accordingly makes an important contribution to the overall aesthetic of the new neighbourhood and therefore the character and appearance of the street. The dwelling has a side parking area and benefits from a private walled rear garden along with an additional first floor amenity area as part of its original design.

The proposed single-storey garden outbuilding, constructed in timber would exceed the height of the existing garden brick wall to the waterfront elevation of the property. During my site visit, I observed that the structure would be visible from the adjacent pedestrian walkway. Whilst timber sheds are commonplace in gardens, the proposed outbuilding would read as a substantive extension to the dwelling itself. As a result, due to its height and timber construction, it would not match the prevailing materials in the area and would appear out of keeping with the appearance of the property. Consequently, it would harm the character and appearance of the building and the surrounding area in this regard.

The proposed carport would introduce a new brick structure to the front of the existing parking area. Whilst to would be subordinate to No 9, the car port extension would elongate the property in a manner that would reduce its symmetry with the opposite neighbour and therefore erode the planned design concept of the street.

The proposed first-floor greenhouse extension would be positioned on the terrace and above the proposed carport and as a result it would be visible when walking down [site address] . By virtue of its elevated siting on a prominent corner plot, the first-floor greenhouse extension would directly affect views towards the [name] from the wider development. By reason of its overall appearance, scale and form together with its use of glass and timber the greenhouse would be at odds with the established palette of materials, and it would have a visually dominant effect on the spatial quality of the area.

The appellant has suggested that alternative finish materials could be adopted for the greenhouse element by way of a planning condition. However, these changes would likely substantially alter the visual design of the scheme. The Planning Practice Guidance makes clear that conditions should not be used in a manner that would substantially alter a proposal.

Overall, when considered as a whole these factors would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the wider area. As a result, when assessed against the requirements of Policy CS03 of the [site address] [name] (2014) which seeks high-quality, well-designed development that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the local built environment the proposal would not meet the policy’s overarching design objectives.

The appeal dwelling benefits from two distinct forms of private outdoor amenity: a ground floor garden and a first-floor terrace. Whilst the garden represents the primary outdoor space, the terrace nonetheless contributes to the overall level of amenity by providing an additional, readily accessible outdoor area directly related to first-floor living accommodation. This arrangement reflects a consistent design approach for corner plots within the development and forms part of the amenity provision originally intended for the dwelling.

The proposed enclosure of the terrace would remove this external amenity from use. Although the resulting glazed space would provide additional internal accommodation, it would no longer function as private outdoor space and would therefore not provide the same opportunities for enjoyment of the fresh air and outdoor sitting. As a result, the impact would not be limited to a reduction in the amount of space available but would also diminish the range and functionality of amenity provision available for the occupiers.

This change must also be considered in conjunction with the proposed ground floor outbuilding, which would occupy part of the rear garden and further reduce the extent of usable amenity space.

In reaching my conclusion, I have had regard to [name] of the [name], which provides guidance on the assessment of residential amenity impacts arising from extensions and alterations to dwellings. In this case, I find that the proposal would materially diminish the quality, functionality and enjoyment of private amenity space when assessed in the round. This guidance is a relevant material consideration and informs my overall assessment of the suitability of the proposal and its implications for the living conditions of occupiers.

For these reasons, I find that this would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupants of the dwelling. Accordingly, the appeal proposal conflicts with policy PS10 of the Saved City of Leicester Local Plan (2006).

The appellant has drawn my attention to the proposal comprising three distinct elements. In reviewing the evidence, I have considered each component of the scheme harmful on its own planning merits. For that reason, a split decision would not be appropriate in this case.

The appellant has referred to other extensions within the wider estate; however, I did not see any similar extensions on my site visit and in any case each proposal must be assessed on its own merits and in relation to its specific context.

I have also taken account of the appellant’s personal preferences regarding amenity provision. While noted, these factors do not outweigh the planning considerations that are central to this decision.

I note that the Council is imminently adopting a new Local Plan, which has reached an advanced stage in the statutory process and accordingly attracts significant weight as a material consideration. However, the relevant policies within the emerging Plan are broadly consistent with those of the adopted development plan and national policy in seeking high-quality design and the protection of residential amenity. Its adoption would not materially alter my assessment of the proposal or lead to a different conclusion in this appeal.

Given the harm that would arise to the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of the occupants, the scheme would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. The appellant has referred to Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), but there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that Paragraph 11 d) ii) applies to this case. The other considerations before me, including the Framework do not indicate that I should make a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.