Ground floor alterations, removal of roof with a new floor and roof extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 May 2026 by J Hobbs MRTPI MCD BSc (hons) an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6th July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004941 50 The Broadway, Oadby, Leicestershire LE2 2HE • 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 Malhan against the decision of Oadby and Wigston Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/00203/FUL. • The development proposed is ground floor alterations, removal of roof with a new floor and roof extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. Following the submission of the appeal, the Council adopted the Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document, June 2026 (SPD). I have consulted the parties on this document and considered their responses when determining the appeal. Main Issues 3. The main issues are: • whether it has been demonstrated that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on protected species; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and, • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of 48 The Broadway (No 48) and 52 The Broadway (No 52), with particular regard to the loss of daylight and sunlight, outlook, and privacy. Reasons Protected species 4. The Bat Scoping Survey identified pipistrelle droppings within the roof of the appeal property. The Survey concluded that the droppings were historical, and no further surveys were required as squirrel proofing works have subsequently been undertaken. It is implied that as a result of those works, and due to a lack of access points, the appeal property is no longer suitable for roosting bats. 5. The Council contend that the Survey did not conclude on the suitability of the appeal property for roosting bats. The appellant argues that the Survey concluded that the appeal property is of low suitability for roosting bats. Even if I accept the appellant’s position, there would still be some possibility that bats could roost within the appeal Appeal Decision 6004941 2 property. Furthermore, the Council has identified that the wider appeal site is suitable for foraging bats. There is also no indication that the droppings were DNA tested or photographed in position. Therefore, it is unclear how they were determined to be historical. 6. The proposed development includes the removal of the roof. Consequently, if bats are roosting within the roof, they would be harmed by the proposed development. On balance of the evidence before me, and applying the precautionary principle, I am not entirely satisfied that the appeal property is no longer suitable for roosting bats, and that bats would not be harmed by the proposed development. 7. I therefore conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on protected species. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy 37 of The Borough of Oadby and Wigston Local Plan, 2011-2031, April 2019 (LP). Particularly where the Policy indicates that the Council will look to support development proposals that proactively seek to protect biodiversity, amongst other matters. The proposal would also be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) where it advises that planning decisions should contribute to the natural environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity, amongst other matters. Character and appearance 8. The appeal site is in an area identified as ‘Oadby Arboretum Area’ within the Landscape Character Assessment, 2018 (LCA)1. The area is defined by low density residential development and dwellings in the area are of a varying design. There is a mix of bungalows and multi-storey dwellings in the road. The appeal property is a bungalow and is sited between two other bungalows. Most dwellings are set well back from the road within large plots and have a very low footprint to plot ratio. These factors combine to create a suburban character. 9. The proposal comprises of several extensions and alterations to the appeal property. Following these works the appeal property would be a large two-storey dwelling, with a tall, hipped roof. It would be much taller and bulkier than its immediate neighbours, No 48 and No 52. However, it would be similar in scale and massing to other dwellings along this section of the road, including those opposite. 10. The appeal property has a complex roof form and is finished with clay tiles with bonnet hip tiles. This is similar to the neighbouring bungalows. The proposed hipped roof would have a large flat roof section in the centre and would also be of a complex form. Tall, hipped roofs with large flat roofed sections are common in the area. There are several dwellings in proximity to the appeal site with similar roof forms. With regard to the proposed concrete tiles, a condition could be attached to any planning permission requiring details of the proposed finishes to be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Council. This would ensure that the proposed finish would assimilate with other external finishes in the area. 11. The proposed extended property would be largely finished with render, with only the lower sections finished with brick. Although brick is identified as the main material of the area within the LCA, multiple properties in the area are finished with render, including the existing appeal property. As such, the proposed render would be in keeping with other dwellings in the area. 1 Landscape Character Assessment, Evidence base under pinning the Local Plan for the Borough of Oadby and Wigston, 2018 Appeal Decision 6004941 3 12. Furthermore, the proposed extended property would include gables which would extend from the front elevation and provide detailing. Similar features are present on nearby dwellings, and they would help create a sense of uniqueness to the design. This would contribute to the varying design of properties in the area. 13. The Council contend that the appeal property is in a prominent position. However, I observed that it is broadly in line with several properties alongside one side of The Broadway and is not in an overly prominent position. I acknowledge that if built the proposed extended property would be significantly taller than both its immediate neighbours which may lead to it being more prominent. Nevertheless, for the reasons set out above the proposed extended property would be a congruent addition to the street scene and the proposed roof form would be in keeping within the roofscape. 14. The LCA specifies that the defining characteristics of the Oadby Arboretum Area includes large single dwelling plots, impressive building frontages including gables, and large houses set in landscaped grounds. The LCA goes on to advise that around The Broadway some of the historic character has been lost through the redevelopment of plots. In particular, the sub-division of plots and backland development is identified as a concern. Furthermore, the LCA identifies 10 pieces of policy guidance for the area. This includes to seek to retain pockets of historic buildings where there is still a valid group value. 15. The proposal would not be backland or tandem development, nor would it lead to the subdivision of the plot. The proposed extended property would be a large house set in landscaped grounds within a large plot, with an impressive frontage that includes gable features. The appeal property currently forms part of a pocket of historic bungalows, but they do not have group value. The proposed extended property would better reflect the defining characteristics of the area than the existing bungalow. I therefore consider that the proposal would conform with the LCA. 16. Overall, I conclude that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore comply with LP policies 6 and 44 where they indicate that proposals for new development must create a distinctive environment by creating development that is of high architectural quality, amongst other matters. The proposal would also be in accordance with the Residential Development SPD where it states that all new residential development must have a relationship with its surroundings in terms of massing, height, balance, use or materials, roof shape, and architectural detailing. Moreover, the proposal would be in accordance with the Framework where it advises that planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character. Living conditions 17. As set out above, the appeal property is a bungalow and is sited between two other bungalows, No 48 and No 52. The appeal property spans almost the entire width of the plot and is positioned broadly in line with both neighbouring properties. Nonetheless, the appeal property has a greater depth than both neighbouring properties. Therefore, it projects beyond their rear elevations. It is also worth noting that both neighbouring properties are of an irregular plan form. Consequently, the appeal property extends much further into the plot than the nearest corner of No 48. Furthermore, both neighbouring properties have outbuildings which are located close to the boundaries with the appeal property. Appeal Decision 6004941 4 18. The proposed extended property would have the same footprint as the existing bungalow. Nevertheless, the extended property would be much taller, due to the additional storey. Consequently, the proposed extended property would have a significantly greater massing than the existing bungalow. 19. Due to the separation between the proposed extended property and No 52, it would not appear overbearing when viewed from within No 52. Likewise, given the position of windows within No 48, there would be limited views of the proposed extended property from inside. Most of those views would also be above No 48’s outbuilding. Given the separation and intervening development, the proposed extended property would not appear overbearing from within No 48. 20. Additionally, both No 48 and No 52 have very large gardens. Whilst the proposed extended property would have a much greater massing and would be built close to neighbouring boundaries, it would not appear overbearing due to the spacious character of these gardens. The relationship between the proposed extended property and its boundaries would be similar to many suburban areas, where two-storey dwellings are built close to the boundary. 21. The creation of upper floor windows within the proposed extended property would increase the extent that neighbouring gardens are overlooked. The inclusion of two Juliet balconies within the rear elevation would increase the extent of overlooking further. However, similar to above, this is a fairly ordinary relationship in suburban areas where it is generally accepted that gardens will be indirectly overlooked by neighbouring upper floor windows. Also, as the appeal property projects further into the plot than neighbouring properties, neighbouring occupiers would not be overlooked when using the area immediately to the rear of their own properties. 22. The proposed extended property includes upper floor windows in the side elevations. Most of these windows serve bathrooms, as such they could be obscurely glazed. There are also upper floor windows in the side elevations which serve proposed bedrooms 1 and 4. Given the size and orientation of these windows, they appear to be secondary windows and could also be obscurely glazed. The only other upper floor window in the side elevations, would be positioned diagonally from the boundary with No 52, and serves the proposed landing/hallway. Given the position of this window and the distance to the boundary, there would be limited overlooking of No 52 from this window. Taking all of the above into account, the proposal would not result in neighbouring occupiers being harmfully overlooked by the occupiers of the appeal property. 23. Given the orientation of the appeal property and neighbouring properties, the proposed extended property could overshadow both No 48 and No 52. The appellant appended a Daylight, Sunlight, and Overshadowing Study2 to their Statement of Case. The Study was undertaken in accordance with Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidance. The Study concludes that the proposal is fully compliant with BRE guidance. 24. Notwithstanding this, the Study identifies a window within No 48’s conservatory as Window 1. The Study identifies that following the proposed development Window 1 would receive 4.2% of the Winter Probable Sunlight Hours, which is a 24% reduction, also the Annual Probable Sunlight Hours would fall by 7.1% for this window. 2 Daylight, Sunlight, and Overshadowing Study; 50 The Boradway, Oadby, Leicester, LE2 2HE, Rev. A, January 2026 Appeal Decision 6004941 5 25. This would be a breach of BRE guidance and would indicate that the window would receive little sunlight in the winter. The Study also assessed part of the ceiling of the conservatory, identified as Skylight C. The skylight would receive ample sunlight, throughout the year and during the winter. I am therefore satisfied that the aforementioned breach is only a technical matter, and that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of sunlight experienced within No 48’s conservatory, when considered as a whole. 26. I acknowledge that the area immediately to the rear of No 48 may only receive a moderate amount of daylight and sunlight. However, this area is already enclosed between an extended section of that dwelling and an outbuilding. The proposed development would have little effect on the amount of daylight and sunlight experienced in this area. More generally, it is clear from the evidence that neighbouring occupiers would experience less daylight and sunlight if the proposed development was constructed. However, due to the position of the windows and skylights, and the size of their gardens, it would only be a modest loss and would not harmfully affect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. 27. Overall, I conclude that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of No 48 and No 52, with particular regard to the loss of daylight and sunlight, outlook, and privacy. The proposal would comply with LP Policy 6, where it indicates that proposals for new development must ensure safe and healthy communities by protecting local amenity. The proposal would also be in accordance with the Framework where it specifies that planning decisions should ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity. Other Matters 28. The proposal would make an effective use of land and would utilise airspace above an existing residential property. The appeal property is in an accessible location within a well-established residential area. There would also be economic benefits associated with the construction period. In this regard, the proposal would be in accordance with the Framework. These are also benefits of the proposal, but they do not outweigh the identified harm. 29. The proposal would not be materially harmful to the character and appearance of the area, or the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. It would also not have an effect on heritage assets. Nonetheless, these are neutral factors which neither weigh in favour nor against the proposal. 30. I am conscious of the emerging National Planning Policy Framework, but it currently holds limited weight in my consideration of the appeal proposal, as only a consultation version has been published. I am also aware of Policy S4 within the emerging Framework. However, the presence of this draft policy does not alter my assessment on the acceptability of the appeal proposal. Conclusion 31. The proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. J Hobbs INSPECTOR