Described on the application form thus: “To produce a two storey dual fronted gable aspect to infill the L shaped house that currently stands. There would be two new external walls created along the boundary of number 34 and across the front of the plot to join up to the current low level garage. The low level garage and office would then have a second storey added to it to complete the dual fronted gables. The house design is to mimic that of number 41 and 43 Fairmount Drive which sit opposite number 36

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 December 2024 by Andrew Dale BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 December 2024 Appeal Ref. APP/X2410/D/24/3350100 36 Fairmount Drive, Loughborough LE11 3JR • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Samuel Mayfield against the decision of Charnwood Borough Council. • The application ref. is P/24/0801/2. • The development proposed is described on the application form thus: “To produce a two storey dual fronted gable aspect to infill the L shaped house that currently stands. There would be two new external walls created along the boundary of number 34 and across the front of the plot to join up to the current low level garage. The low level garage and office would then have a second storey added to it to complete the dual fronted gables. The house design is to mimic that of number 41 and 43 Fairmount Drive which sit opposite number 36.” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary matter 2. A revised National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) was published on 12 December 2024. The substantive parts of the new 2024 version do not however differ from the previous version insofar as they relate to the main issue in this appeal. The cases of the main parties will not therefore be prejudiced by my reference to the new version. I have proceeded on this basis. Main issue 3. Flowing from the Council’s decision notice, the main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. Reasons 4. Fairmount Drive is a pleasant residential street mainly characterised by detached or semi-detached 2-storey houses, many of which appear to date from the 1930s from the information put before me. Some have been extended since their original construction. However, the plainer appeal dwelling appears to date from the 1970s. It has a pronounced L-shaped ground floor plan. Its 2-storey section, which is covered by a fully hipped roof, is set well back on the site behind a long single- storey, forward-projecting wing that contains a garage in the front end. The proposal is as described in the heading above. Appeal Decision APP/X2410/D/24/3350100 2 5. The principle of extending the property and adapting it to meet the changing needs of the current occupants are not at issue. However, the Framework advises that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development; so, development should add to the overall quality of the area and be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and sympathetic to local character. I consider that the appeal proposal is ill-judged in these important respects. 6. The proposed 2-storey front extension would fill the large open space in the corner of the L-shape. It would be joined to the proposed first floor front extension with tall 2-storey advanced gables added to each. Combined together in the scale and form presented, together with the half-hipped roof over the front half of the resulting building that would be notably higher and more dominant than the existing fully hipped roof retained behind and the creation of 2-storey flank walls of considerable depth, substantial mass and bulk would be added to the front and side elevations of the dwelling. This would be apparent in public views from Fairmount Drive. 7. The design approach taken does not successfully break up the mass and bulk. The proposed development would result in a top-heavy and bulky profile that would engulf the front of, and bear no relation to, the original dwelling. This would represent poor design as the extensions would appear as substantial and unsympathetic later additions which would fail to integrate well with and be harmful to the original form and appearance of the host dwelling. 8. Some aspects of the design would be architecturally ill-mannered. This would include the mixture of fully hipped, half-hipped and gabled roof forms, the awkward section of roofing between the main existing and proposed elements, the absence of any obvious breaks in the wall planes along the deep side elevations and the lack of attention to the design of the dual front gables. Both front gables would have a rather limited forward projection and plain detailing when compared to the well detailed, advanced matching gables with jettied bays of Tudor style panelling at nos 41 and 43 that the scheme is alleged to mimic. 9. No street scene drawings have been presented but from my assessment of the plans and my observations at the site visit, the resulting building would also appear intrusive in the Fairmount Drive street scene on account of its roof form, height, bulk and lack of subservience to the original dwelling. 10. In all the above respects, the scheme eschews various design criteria within the Council’s Design Supplementary Planning Document 2020 (SPD). The SPD says that it is important that any extension respects the basic shape, proportions and size of the existing property. The shape, pitch and style of roof will be of particular importance. Extensions should be designed so that the main property is still the dominant building. The roof and eaves lines should be lower than those of the existing house. In the appeal case, it would be very difficult to detect the original dwelling after the extensions had been built. Rather, it would be subsumed by overly dominant and incongruous additions. 11. The extensions including the dual front gables would have their own basic symmetry. I acknowledge that the existing dwelling is unlike any other property on the street in terms of its age, siting and layout and is somewhat out of character. Furthermore, the proposed external materials (brick and render) would match those found along Fairmount Drive. The appellant feels that the Council has not been Appeal Decision APP/X2410/D/24/3350100 3 proactive in its approach throughout the process. However, I consider that the Council’s concerns about the proposal were justified as the enlargements would appear as prominent and insufficiently subservient additions to the host dwelling in public views from Fairmount Drive. Their design, scale, mass and lack of coherence with the host building would be disrespectful of and inappropriate to the character, appearance and setting of the existing dwelling and the surroundings. 12. I walked along the drive to see the variety of houses, including those that have been extended, noting in particular no. 38. However, I have no details of the planning history of this property or of any of the other houses photographed and included in the appellant’s statement. 13. No. 38 seems to have been extended at the front and side close to the boundary with no. 36 but this property, like nos 20, 22 and 40, occupies a wider plot and the extensions do not appear out of proportion to the original dwelling in terms of their scale, width or height. It is not difficult to detect the original dwelling at no. 38. The half-hipped roof on the side of no. 27 and the flat roof over the 2-storey side wing of no. 26 are unfortunate and not good examples to follow. The use of red brick in the side extension at no. 1 helps to retain the legibility of the rendered semi-detached pair at nos 1 and 3. I saw nothing to justify what is proposed on the appeal site and it is an established planning principle that each case should be considered on its own merits. 14. I find on the main issue that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. When read together, Policy CS 2 of the Charnwood Local Plan 2011-2028 Core Strategy, saved Policies EV/1 and H/17 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan 2004 and emerging Policy DS5 of the Draft Charnwood Local Plan 2021-2037 seek high standards of design for new development and to ensure an extension to an existing dwelling remains compatible in scale, mass, design and use of materials with the original dwelling and would not appear as an intrusive or incongruous feature in the street scene to the detriment of visual amenities. The proposal would not meet the expectations of these policies and would also fail to respect the key design themes in the Framework insofar as they relate to achieving well-designed places. 15. The Council raised no objections in relation to neighbouring residential amenities, parking and highway safety. I see no reason to disagree on any of those matters. Still, my finding on the main issue is decisive to the outcome of this appeal. There is conflict with the development plan. The harm cannot be mitigated by the imposition of planning conditions and it is not outweighed by other material considerations. 16. For the reasons given above and taking into account all other matters raised by all the parties, I conclude that this appeal should not succeed. Andrew Dale INSPECTOR