Appeal 6008912

The appeal is dismissed.

Following the determination of this application the Council has adopted the Leicester Local Plan 2020 – 2036 in June 2026 (LP). The LP replaces the Leicester City Core Strategy 2014 and the saved policies of the Leicester Local Plan 2006 against which the proposal was determined as noted within the stated refusal reasons.

The Council’s delegated report was clear, in their consideration of the proposal, with regard to affording significant weight to the then emerging policies of the LP, which were listed, in accordance with paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework). The emerging, now adopted, policies were also acknowledged as of relevance, based on that report, within the appellant’s statement of case as part of the appeal. The appellant has, therefore, reasonably had the opportunity to consider the impact of the emerging policies, now adopted, at the point that the appeal was submitted.

Whilst the Local Plan is acknowledged to have changed since determination of the proposal, I do not find that the adoption of the new LP materially changes the main issues or considerations that are determinative within the context of this appeal. This is on the basis that the refusal reasons are concerned with design and positioning matters with specific regard to the character of the street scene and the availability of information in relation to trees. I have, therefore, considered the proposal on its own merits but with reference to the newly adopted LP policies that are now adopted at the point of determination.

The main issues are the impact of the proposal upon i) the semi-detached couplet (pair) and the character of the street scene (as a result of design and positioning) and, ii) neighbouring trees.

The appeal site is a semi-detached dwelling which stands on [address] where the properties, along both sides of the road, have a noticeably uniform design and appearance with regard to their roof structures with the pairs of semi-detached dwellings strongly retaining their symmetrical appearance. The exception to this is the immediately adjacent pair which have gable ends. The host dwelling currently has a cat slide roof which is a strong characteristic of the properties along [address], and the proposal would significantly interrupt the uniformity of the semi-detached pair and the characteristic roof form within the street scene.

At the time of my site visit, I found that the uniform character and appearance within the street scene is largely as a result of the unaltered, consistent, roof forms, albeit I note that there are examples of side extensions, visible within the street scene, for example those at [address] and [address], respectively. I also note a small, dormer, extension at [address]. Despite this, none of these are of a comparable scale to the appeal proposal. The examples noted do not exceed the height of the first-floor windows, compared to the appeal proposal showing a ridge height in the region of 6.67 metres, which is not far short of the ridge height of the host dwelling itself. The scale of the appeal proposal is notably larger than other examples of roof alterations within [address].

The proposed change in roof form, as a result of the first-floor side extension, would result in a visually prominent and alien feature when viewed alongside properties within the immediate locality which are notably uniform and consistent in their character and appearance. As a result of this the proposed side extension, and alteration to the roof form, would be unacceptable due to its design and positioning being detrimental to the symmetry of the existing semi-detached pair as well as resulting in a development which would appear significantly out of character as an alien feature within the street scene. As acknowledged above I note examples of changes to the roof form on some properties further down [address], however, none of these are of the scale of the appeal proposal that is before me. I therefore place limited weight upon their presence in terms of justifying the acceptability of the appeal proposal.

The appellant raises, as a material consideration, a Certificate of Lawfulness (2026

which is stated to have been issued for [address]. The appellant outlines that the certificate confirms that the construction of a side dormer and rear extension would have been lawful, as form of permitted development, but the approved drawings have not been provided as evidence as part of this appeal. Despite this, it is unlikely that a proposal, within the restrictions of permitted development, would result in a development of the scale which forms part of the proposal that is before me. The proposal which is the subject of this appeal is, comparably, for a first-floor side extension and not for a side dormer in the roof.

Whilst the Certificate of Lawfulness referred to by the appellant may demonstrate that there is an ability to adjust the roof form, via permitted development, beyond the control of the Council I do not find that it is of weight in the determination of this appeal. The impact of utilisation of any permitted development rights is unlikely to result in as significant an impact to the host dwelling, as a semi-detached dwelling, and the character of the street scene as the appeal proposal for the reasons set out. Based on my observations I cannot reasonably conclude that the first-floor side extension should be regarded as sympathetic to the character of the area, the street scene or the semi-detached pair of which the appeal site forms part of.

The Council’s first refusal reason, and delegated report, do not raise an issue with the rear outbuilding in terms of design or positioning. I have no evidence before me to conclude differently in relation to that element of the proposal, however, based on the first-floor side extension the proposal would be contrary to LP Policy DQP01 which requires proposals to integrate well into their surroundings and contribute positively to its context in terms of design.

The proposal would also be contrary to the Framework which, in paragraph 131, confirms good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and that, in paragraph 135, planning decisions should ensure developments will function well and add to the overall quality of the area as well as being sympathetic to local character. In accordance with paragraph 139, of the Framework, development that is not well designed should be refused.

The trees in question are immediately adjacent to the boundary of the appeal site and on the basis of the trees not being shown on the plans, and the application forms stating that there were no trees or hedges within falling distance of the proposed development, it is reasonable to consider that the Council validated the application without a tree survey in good faith on the basis of this information. It is evident, therefore, that at the point of a Council officer visiting the site that the presence of trees was discovered with the proposal, to that point, not having confirmed the presence of trees in the submitted documents.

On the basis of the evidence before me I do not find that the second refusal reason is unreasonable as the Council, at validation, acted based upon the information provided and the presence of trees was then reasonably discovered at the point of a site visit. It is not clear why the application form was completed to state that there were no trees or hedges on the property or adjoining properties which are within falling distance when, clearly, this was the case due to the location proposed for the outbuilding at the rear. Whilst the trees are not subject to a Tree Preservation Order or similar, the appellant should, reasonably, have considered the implication of these trees outside of the appeal site in a manner which was proportionate to the scale and type of development which was proposed.

Ultimately, the application was accepted as valid due to the applicant’s incorrect completion of the application form and failure to show the trees on the submitted plans. Conditions can be utilised to resolve technical matters, post determination, in some cases but in this case ability to construct the proposed outbuilding, at the rear, is intrinsically linked to the ability to demonstrate that the trees in question would not be unduly harmed or affected as a result of the proposal (as a result of both physical construction and temporarily during actual construction works in general). I consider this information should reasonably have formed part of the application prior to determination and the presence of trees should have been identified within the submitted documents.

Even if I had agreed with the appellant that the lack of a tree survey could have been resolved through utilisation of a condition attached to any planning permission granted, the appeal would still have failed due to the issues I have found in the context of the first main issue. The proposal would be contrary to LP Policy DQP04 which requires proposals to retain landscape features such as trees as well as considering trees with a view to avoid creating a later pressure for their removal.

The proposal would also be contrary to paragraph 136, of the Framework, which acknowledges that trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of the urban environment and that planning decisions should ensure that existing trees are retained wherever possible.

Comment/objection has been made that the loft conversion would encroach on privacy as well as impacting upon light to the adjacent property. The Council’s delegated report confirms that they consider the proposal to be acceptable with regard to residential amenity. I have no evidence to suggest that the proposal would be unacceptable with regard to privacy or loss of light given the positioning, over the existing footprint, nor that the positioning of the windows within the proposal would provide inappropriate opportunity for overlooking or impacts to privacy. The proposed window in the side elevation would serve a staircase and is positioning would, in any case, be facing the roof slope of the adjacent property.

Comments are raised with regard to disturbance and general occupancy, however, the proposal would still be for a single residential dwelling and any occupation beyond that is not within the scope of this appeal and, furthermore, I have no reason to consider the proposal would be inappropriate with regard to parking as a result of an additional (single) bedroom and ensuite within the proposed first floor.

It is stated that trees have already been felled on site, however, I understand that the trees were not subject to a Tree Preservation Order or similar, meaning that such action would not be subject to planning control. Finally, issues regarding general occupation, disturbance, environmental issues or litter are not controlled by the planning system, they are legislated elsewhere by their own regimes and systems and would be managed through appropriate legislation by, for example, Environmental Health as appropriate.

For the reasons outlined above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.