Proposed roof terrace

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 March 2026 by D Harris-Watkins BA(Hons) PgD MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001468 9 Manor Road, Great Bowden, Leicestershire, LE16 7HE • 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 & Mrs S Clothier against the decision of Harborough District Council. • The application Ref is 25/00977/FUL. • The development is described as proposed roof terrace. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The appeal site is within proximity of the Grade II listed building 5 Manor Road and within the Great Bowden Conservation Area (CA), therefore I have had special regard to Section 66(1) and Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act). Main Issues 3. The main issues of the appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of 9 Manor Road and the surrounding area, including the CA and the setting of the Grade II listed building 5 Manor Road; and, • the living conditions of neighbouring properties on Manor Road, with particular regard to privacy, outlook, daylight and sunlight. Reasons Character and Appearance 4. The appeal site comprises an end of terrace dwelling which has been extended to the rear. The proposal seeks to add a rear first floor terrace to an extension approved in 2024 that appears to be currently under construction. No.5 and No.9 share a property boundary as such the appeal site forms part of the setting of the listed building. 5. The CA comprises the historic core of the village with a network of greens creating a distinct settlement pattern. The CA includes numerous listed buildings, and its significance as a whole derives from its legibility of the historic development of the village. The listing details for No.5 state it is a 17th century gabled ironstone cottage, and it is therefore representative of some of the earlier development of the Appeal Decision 6001468 2 village. The significance of the CA and the listed building therefore derive from their historical and architectural value. 6. Due to the terraced properties being set back from the road, and the mature vegetation to the road frontage, No.9 is not overly visible from the public domain. The contribution that setting makes to the significance of the heritage asset however does not depend solely on views from the public domain, or an ability to otherwise experience or access that setting. The proposal would be prominent from No.5 and the terraced properties on Manor Road. The spacious frontage of the site and the matter it forms part of a Victorian terrace representative of the historic development of the settlement, means the site contributes positively to the CA and the setting of the listed building, and is considered a non-designated heritage asset. 7. The construction of a walled terrace through the absence of a pitched roof would appear similar to a flat roofed extension, or an unusually high wall for its context when viewed from a side elevation. Though terraced properties extensions typically have a range of design, the extension of the wall at a high level to form the terrace, would appear incongruous and would not contribute positively to the character and appearance of the host building, diminishing its contribution to the CA. The development would result in an increase in dominance of No.9 on the setting of the listed building, resulting in the proposal adversely impacting how the listed building is experienced. The materials indicated on the plans would further distinguish the proposal and increase the harm caused to the setting of the heritage assets. 8. With regard to the wording of The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the development would result in less than substantial harm to the heritage assets, but it would be at the lower end of that category of harm. In accordance with Paragraph 215 of the Framework, when less than substantial harm is found it must be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme. There would be some social and economic benefits through the construction of the scheme, however due to the scale of the proposal these can only be given limited weight. Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that great weight should be attributed to the conservation of heritage assets. As such the benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the harm and therefore the proposal conflicts with the Framework. 9. I conclude on balance, the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the host building, the setting of the nearby listed building and the CA. This would fail to satisfy the requirements of s66(1) and s72(1) of the Act. The development would also conflict with Policy HC1- Built Heritage and Policy GD8 – Good design in development both of the Harborough Local Plan 2019 (the LP), and Policy H6: Design Standards of Great Bowden’s Neighbourhood Plan 2020 (the NP). These policies seek among other things, to protect the historic environment and that development should be of a high quality of design and respond to local context. 10. Policy ENV2 of the LP is cited in the reasons for refusal within the Council’s decision notice, however no such policy exists, and it is presumed this is a typographical error. Policy ENV2: Protection of Local Green Space of the NP does not directly relate to the proposal. Policy ENV6: Non-designated Heritage Assets of the NP, lists specific non-designated heritage assets to which the policy applies. Appeal Decision 6001468 3 Both of the parties agree the appeal site comprises a non-designated heritage asset, however it is not in this list therefore I have found Policy ENV6 of the NP is not determinative in this case. Living Conditions 11. The main house of No.5 has a lower ground level than its rear garden, which the side elevation of No.9 is viewed beyond. Though this is an existing relationship between buildings, the increase in height of built form through the construction of the roof terrace has the potential to affect this relationship. Arguments have been put forward by the appellant that the total height of No.9’s mono pitch roof is not dissimilar to the proposed height of the terrace walls. However, the mono pitch roof increases in height away from the boundary of No.5, such that it softens the increase in height that a vertical wall in the same location would not. 12. Though the proposed terrace wall would be no taller than the existing eaves height of No.9, the extension of a wall at this height in combination with the difference between the ground level of No.5 would result in an increase in the sense of enclosure of the garden and have an adverse impact to the outlook of the dwelling. This would cause harm to the occupiers living conditions. 13. Though the walls are of reasonable height, numerous people would still be able to see over the top of them. Due to the floorspace of the terrace an occupier would always be standing in close proximity to the terrace wall such that it would provide views over the wall into the neighbouring gardens whether intended to or not. The proposal would therefore create additional views into the rear gardens of No.5, No.11 and the other neighbouring terraced properties, therefore causing harm to their living conditions through the loss of privacy. 14. The appellant has stated there will be no increase in height of the wall adjacent to the boundary with No.11, however the appeal plans show the mono pitch roofline annotated on the proposed plans indicating an increase in height. Though this is an existing relationship and the increase in height on the nearest elevation is modest, it would still result in a reduction in daylight and particularly sunlight to the pitched roof windows in the single storey extension of No. 11, and to a lesser extent its first-floor window, causing harm to their living conditions. 15. In conclusion, considering the combined impact of the loss of privacy, daylight, sunlight and increase in overbearing caused by the development, this would result in a significant adverse effect on the neighbouring properties living conditions. Consequently, the proposal would be in conflict with Policy GD8 of the LP, which among other things seeks to protect the living conditions of existing residents. Other Matters 16. In support of the appeal, I have been referred to several other developments locally. I have however not been provided with the full details of these cases, and I must make my decision based on the evidence put to me by the parties. I also saw on my site visit that the property with the first-floor terrace highlighted has a different relationship with their surroundings so is materially different. In any event I have determined the appeal on its own merits. 17. The appellant has also raised an argument why the previous extension approved in 2024 was acceptable and the current proposal is not, however I have not been Appeal Decision 6001468 4 provided the full details of the application. In any event my role is not to provide reasoning for the Council’s previous decisions, but to determine the appeal before me. 18. The appellant has stated they would have been willing to accept amendments to the scheme, including alternative materials to those shown on the submitted plans. The appeal process is not intended to be an opportunity to evolve a scheme, and I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans. Conclusion 19. In conclusion, the proposal would conflict with the development plan, and there are no material considerations that would outweigh the conflict. The proposal would also be in conflict with the Framework and contrary to s66(1) and s72(1) of the Act. For these reasons the appeal should be dismissed. D Harris-Watkins INSPECTOR