Appeal 6006073

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has submitted the ‘Acknowledgement of Planning Application’ letter as proof of an agreement to a change of the description of development. There is no evidence before me that this change was bilaterally agreed in writing. The description of development on the Application Form accurately described the proposal. I have therefore duplicated this within the banner above.

Following the submission of the appeal, the Council has adopted the Leicester Local Plan 2020 to 2036, June 2026 (LP). I consulted the parties on the adoption of this development plan document, and I have considered their responses when determining the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is set within a spacious corner plot at the junction between [address] and [address]. Dwellings in the area are of a varying design. It is apparent that many of these houses have been extended and altered over time. As such, most pairs of semi-detached dwellings in the area lack symmetry. Nonetheless, the appeal property is broadly similar in design to the semi-detached dwellings on [address], [address] and [address].

[address] slopes downhill away from its junction with [address]. Consequently, the appeal property appears in an elevated position when viewed from parts of [address] and [address]. Given the topography of the area and the appeal property’s corner plot, both the side and rear elevations are prominent in views from public areas.

The ridge of the proposed two storey extension would be set down from the ridge of the existing house. Also, the first-floor of the proposed two storey extension would be set back from the front elevation by one metre. However, other than the one metre set back, the proposed two storey extension would project the full depth of the property, and beyond the rear elevation, where it would wraparound. Therefore, the proposed two storey extension would add significant massing to the appeal property. Due to its siting and size, it would appear as an overly bulky addition and would dominate the appeal property. The harm caused by the proposed extensions would be amplified, as most of the proposed extensions would be highly visible from public areas.

As the appeal property is within a large corner plot, the resultant footprint to plot ratio of the extended property would be similar to other houses in the area. There would also be ample circulation space around the extended property. As such, it would not appear cramped. Furthermore, as the appeal property is separated from the dwelling to the south by a road, the proposed extensions would not have a terracing effect.

The proposed side elevation would be very large and would only contain one window and a door. The Proposed Elevations drawing1 does not show any detailing on the side elevation or specify the proposed external finishes. Nevertheless, the Application Form indicates that the external walls would be finished with brick and render. The contrast in these proposed finishes could create visual interest in the side elevation. Moreover, a lack of fenestration in the side elevations is common in the area, including for dwellings within corner plots.

As above, I acknowledge that dwellings in the area are of a varying design. This includes some dwellings which are similar in design to the proposed extended property. However, the presence of similarly designed dwellings nearby, which are harmful to the character and appearance of the area, would not lead me to allow an appeal for harmful development. Furthermore, some of those extensions are not prominent in public views. Therefore, the harm caused by those extensions is partially mitigated.

I note that the design of the proposed extensions has been amended following a previously refused planning application and a dismissed appeal, but the proposed extensions would still cause harm due to their massing and siting. As such, this does not alter my assessment on the acceptability of the appeal proposal.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to LP Policy DQP01 where it indicates that development will be permitted subject to it contributing positively to its context, amongst other matters. The proposal would also not be in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) where it advises that planning decisions should ensure that developments are visually attractive, and development that is not well designed should be refused.

The proposal would not be harmful to the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. The proposal would comply with LP Policy DQP06 which indicates that proposals should not cause unacceptable harm to the living 1 [name] PL34 A203 [name] conditions of existing residents. Also, this aspect of the proposal would be in accordance with the Framework, where it advises that planning decisions should ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing users. Nonetheless, this would be expected of any development and is therefore a neutral factor which neither weighs in favour nor against the proposal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.