Loft conversion with rear and side pitched roof dormers, demolition of conservatory and existing side and rear extension rendered to match existing property with roof to be replaced with a flat roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 January 2026 by T Morris BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI Decision by A M Nilsson BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 09 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001303 61 Westfield Drive, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3QJ • 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 Mr Jack Price against the decision of Charnwood Borough Council. • The application Ref is P/25/1615/2. • The development proposed is a loft conversion with rear and side pitched roof dormers, demolition of conservatory and existing side and rear extension rendered to match existing property with roof to be replaced with a flat roof. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters 3. Since the original decision the Council have adopted the Charnwood Local Plan (2026). This replaces the Charnwood Local Plan Core Strategy (2015) and the saved policies from the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan (2004) such that the policies of those plans cited on the decision notice are no longer part of the development plan and have no weight. I have therefore considered the relevant policies within the Charnwood Local Plan (2026). Both main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the new local plan. 4. The Council’s concerns are focussed on the proposed side dormer. I have defined the main issue on that basis. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed side dormer on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons for the Recommendation 6. The appeal site comprises a two-storey detached dwelling with a main hipped roof and a smaller gable above a bay window feature. There is some variation to the roof scape along Westfield Drive, albeit most of the dwellings have hipped or gable roof forms. However, the roof slopes are generally plain and unaltered. Furthermore, where there are dormer windows, these are mostly small and have a Appeal Decision 6001303 2 discreet presence in the street scene. The appeal property’s hipped roof with gable feature is in keeping with the surrounding roof scape and as such, it contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. 7. The Council’s Design Supplementary Planning Document (2020) (SPD) advises that unless there are existing dormers in the area, new dormers are likely to be out of character with its surroundings. If dormers are used, they should be as small as possible. They should match the window style and roof pitch of the existing property. They should also be kept as low as possible and should be kept to those areas which are most difficult to see. 8. Due to the excessive scale and mass of the proposed side dormer, it would appear as a large and bulky addition to the roof of the appeal property. Its roof pitch would fail to match the pitch of the main hipped roof, and the window would not reflect the style of the window at the floor below. The bulky scale and incongruous design would be amplified by the dormer window’s elevated siting on the side of the property where it would be highly prominent. Consequently, the side dormer would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. 9. I observed the side dormer window at 65 Westfield Drive (No 65) on my site visit. However, the plans for this, as well as the circumstances in which it was constructed are not before me in order for me to give it significant weight. From my own observations and bearing in mind I viewed the dormer window from street level; it does not appear as wide and bulky as the appeal dormer. Furthermore, it is of a different design, and its window appears to be more in keeping with the first- floor window below. It therefore appears to be well integrated in its own host dwelling, more so than the appeal proposal. Accordingly, the dormer window at No 65 does not justify the appeal. 10. Therefore, I conclude that the proposed side dormer would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would be contrary to Policy DS4 of the Charnwood Local Plan (2026) which requires, amongst other things, that new developments make a positive contribution including by respecting and enhancing the character of the area, having regard to scale and massing. 11. It would also conflict with the SPD, as well as the National Planning Policy Framework, which seek high quality design which makes a positive contribution to the area and that dormer windows should be as small as possible and in areas which are most difficult to see. Other Matters 12. The appellant states that with some minor alterations, it would comply with ‘Class B of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO 2015 (as amended)’ and would fall under permitted development. However, there are no plans of such a development or a lawful development certificate for such a development before me. Therefore, I am unable to make a direct comparison between the appeal and any permitted development fallback position. The appellant also states that it would need to be set back up the roof slope slightly, which suggests that it would be less harmful than the appeal. As such, this matter does not lead me to a different conclusion on the appeal overall. Appeal Decision 6001303 3 13. I also recognise that the appellant is frustrated with the lack of communication and engagement by the Council as well as the absence of an opportunity to provide amendments. However, these are not reasons to allow the appeal, and my recommendation is based on the planning merits of the proposal. Conclusion and Recommendation 14. The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations which would outweigh this conflict. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal is dismissed. T Morris APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 15. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. A M Nilsson INSPECTOR