Demolition of the existing garage & green house and construction of single-storey extensions to the existing dwellings with some internal and external amendments

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 February 2026 by E Heron MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6th March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001609 1 Hayling Crescent, Leicester LE5 0RH • 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 Muhammad Hanif against the decision of Leicester City Council. • The application Ref is 20250403. • The development proposed is described as ‘Demolition of the existing garage & green house and construction of single-storey extensions to the existing dwellings with some internal and external amendments.’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of 24 Greenland Avenue, with particular regard to outlook and light; and • the character and appearance of the area. Reasons Living conditions 4. The appeal site is a bungalow within a small cul-de-sac in a residential area of predominantly two-storey dwellings. The rear of 24 Greenland Avenue (no. 24) lies to the west of the appeal site. A narrow outdoor amenity space separates no. 24 from the appeal site, and there is a close-boarded fence forming the boundary between the two sites. 5. The proposed garage extension would be positioned close to the boundary with no. 24. Its overall height would be well above the top of the boundary fence line, and it would be within approximately two metres of the closest ground floor window of no. 24. Even though the garage extension would be flat-roofed and would not form part of the main habitable accommodation, its height, permanence, solidity, length and siting would dominate the outlook from the aforementioned ground floor window of no. 24. As such, it would create an oppressive, overbearing effect to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupiers. 6. It is the appellant’s stance that habitable room rear windows are typically kitchens or living rooms that have multiple sources of light. However there is nothing before me to indicate that this describes the interior layout of no. 24, or that such a layout Appeal Decision 6001609 2 would negate the overbearing effect that the proposed development would cause to the outlook from the aforementioned window. 7. The ground floor windows of no. 24 face north east and are in close proximity to the close boarded boundary fence and tall vegetation. As a result, existing levels of natural light reaching these windows is somewhat muted. Taking into account the flat roofed form of the garage, the distance to the proposed main roof and the fact that the roof slope is angled away, the proposal would not lead to a harmful loss of light. 8. Whilst the Council’s position is that the proposal would ‘intersect the splay’ of both the rear windows, there is no evidence before me of the methodology used to support this assertion. Nor is their reasoning as to why this would result in a harmful loss of light, in the context of the existing light levels reaching the windows of no. 24. 9. The first floor windows of no. 24 look out over the driveway of the appeal site and towards the sky. Due to the single storey form of the proposed development, outlook and light relating to these windows would not be detrimentally affected. 9. Nevertheless, the proposal would have a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupants of no. 24, with particular reference to outlook from the ground floor window. As such the development would conflict with the relevant provision of saved Policy P10 of the Local Plan1, insofar as it requires development to assimilate with the area. The proposal would also conflict with paragraph 135(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Character and appearance 3. The existing bungalow is set well back from the road side, behind the driveway and forecourt, and in a corner position in the street. The neighbouring dwelling is a bungalow of similar proportions; however the majority of surrounding dwellings are two-storey. Due to its siting and orientation, its rear and its south west facing side elevations are not prominent within the street scene. 4. The proposed extensions, would be primarily contained to the rear and south west side of the bungalow, which is itself set back in its site. They would match the existing ridge and eaves height, and general form and design of the host dwelling. They would also sit behind the existing projection on the front elevation, such that a degree of subservience would be retained. Therefore, the development would not appear to overwhelm the host bungalow and would not be a prominent and discordant addition to the street scene. 5. Accordingly, the development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. In this regard, it would comply with the relevant provisions of saved Policy P10 of the Local Plan and CS Policy 3 of the Core Strategy2. Amongst other things the policies require high quality design that contributes positively to the built environment, taking account of the visual quality of the area. 1 City of Leicester Local Plan (incorporating the City of Leicester Mineral Local Plan) 1996-2016, adopted January 2006. 2 Leicester City local development framework, Core Strategy, adopted July 2014. Appeal Decision 6001609 3 Other Matters 10. The appellant is concerned that the Council did not approach their decision in a positive and proactive way, particularly in relation to the submission of an amended plan that sought to remove a proposed front extension. However, this is not a matter I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had sole regard to the planning merits of the proposal. Conclusion 6. I have not found harm in respect of the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, or the living conditions of the neighbouring occupier in respect of light. However, I have found that this does not outweigh the harm caused by the overbearing effect the development would have on the living conditions of the occupiers of no. 24, in particular regard to the ground floor window. In this case, I consider there would be conflict with the development plan overall. There are no material considerations that indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. E Heron INSPECTOR