Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 June 2026 by Chris Couper BA (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 08 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010077 104 Knighton Church Road, Leicester LE2 3JH • 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 and Mrs Chemma against the decision of Leicester City Council. • The application Ref is 20251461. • The development proposed is a single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension at 104 Knighton Church Road, Leicester LE2 3JH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20251461, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2403_0099-P01, 2403_0010-P02, 2403_0011-P02, 2403_0019-P01, 2403_0020-P10 and 2403_0021-P10. 3) Unless otherwise specified on the approved plans, the external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) Prior to the first use of the development hereby permitted, the flood resilience mitigation measures set out in the Flood Risk Assessment Revision A by PRP, shall be implemented, and those measures shall thereafter be retained. Procedural Matter 2. The Leicester Local Plan 2020 to 2036 (‘LLP’) was adopted on 9 June 2026 and replaces the Leicester City Core Strategy (2014) and saved policies in the Leicester Local Plan (2006). As the Council’s decision refers to now superceded policies, I gave both principal parties the opportunity to comment on the LLP, and I have taken their representations into account in my decision. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions at 106 Knighton Church Road (‘No 106’), and whether it would ensure appropriate living conditions for the occupants of the host property. Appeal Decision: 6010077 2 Reasons 4. Section 2.4 of the Leicester City Council Residential Amenity Supplementary Planning Document 2008 (‘SPD’) states, in broad terms, that an extension must not spoil the outlook from the main windows in principal rooms, and the gardens, of neighbouring properties; and that it should not result in a significant loss of daylight or sunlight to those rooms. It continues that rear extensions in terraced houses which are bigger than permitted development limits are therefore unlikely to be acceptable. Section 2.2 of the SPD states that the effect of an extension on the host property must also be considered. 5. The host comprises a mid-terrace property, which has a two storey rear outrigger, and attached single storey structures beyond. Those rear projections are set in from the boundary with No 106. 6. The scheme would project no further to the rear compared to the host’s existing rear projections. Whilst it would fill in part of the space between them and the side boundary with No 106, a roughly 1 metre gap would be retained. Moreover, the extension would have a limited single storey height and its roof would slope down towards the side boundary. As a result, viewed from the host property and from No 106, it would not appear visually cramped on this spacious plot. 7. That part of No 106 closest to the boundary with the host comprises a narrow yard, with an access through the building to the pavement at the front. No 106’s closest rear-facing ground floor opening comprises patio doors, which are set in from the side boundary beyond that access. The outlook from those doors is already constrained to one side by that property’s outrigger, and to the other by a low boundary wall and No 104’s outrigger. 8. Whilst that outlook would become slightly more enclosed to the left as a result of this scheme, the impact would be tempered by the extension’s limited height, which the Council calculates at 2.4 metres to the eaves, its sloping roof form, and by its siting away from the retained boundary wall. As the two windows in its side elevation would be high level, they would not result in significant mutual overlooking between the proposed extension and No 106’s yard or its side facing ground floor windows. Additionally, No 106 has a long rear garden which would be largely unaffected by the proposal. 9. There would be some limited potential to look down from No 106’s nearest first floor rear window, through rooflights into the host’s proposed kitchen. However, I understand that the window serves a bedroom, which is not a space where occupants typically dwell to enjoy the view, and the principal outlook from there is straight out across that property’s own yard and garden, rather than at an angle and downwards into the proposed kitchen. 10. Finally, the patio doors serving the host’s sitting room would be replaced by a tall, narrow window, thus resulting in a reduction in the amount of natural light received within that room, and a diminished outlook from it. However, in the context of the dwelling as a whole, which includes a front facing lounge with a large bay window, and which, as a result of this scheme, would include a rear-facing kitchen/living space served by large bi-fold doors with an unimpeded outlook down the host’s garden, the scheme would not result in poor living conditions for the occupants. Appeal Decision: 6010077 3 11. For these reasons, the scheme would not have a harmfully adverse impact on the living conditions at No 106, nor would it result in poor living conditions for the occupants of the host property. 12. It would not therefore conflict with LLP Policies DQP01 or DQP06. Amongst other things, and in general terms, these require a high standard of design, and set out that development should not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of existing and future residents, having regard to matters such as privacy, overlooking, overbearance, adequate natural light, and visual quality. Neither would it conflict with the general thrust of the SPD, nor with the stance at paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘Framework’) to create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Conditions and Conclusion 13. I have considered suggested conditions against the tests in the Framework, making amendments where necessary in the interests of clarity and precision. As well as the standard time limit, in the interests of certainty, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. In the interests of good design, and to protect the character and appearance of the host property and the area, a condition is also necessary requiring that the extension be faced with matching materials. 14. The Council states that, should the development be acceptable, a condition requiring that it be carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment is required. In the interests of mitigating the impacts of flooding, I agree that such a condition is necessary. 15. Finally, whilst the Council also suggests that the rooflights in the proposed extension should be obscurely glazed, for the reasons set out above, that is not necessary in order to protect those occupants’ living conditions. 16. Subject to those conditions, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed. Chris Couper INSPECTOR