Erection of front, side and rear extensions, alteration of roof structure and repositioning of dropped kerb to align with the existing drive

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 July 2026 by Eleni Marshall BSc (hons) MSc FRICS FAAV MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010514 Longfield House, Main Street, Gumley, Leicestershire, LE16 7RU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs S Moger against Harborough District Council. • The application Ref is 26/00276/FUL. • The development proposed is erection of front, side and rear extensions, alteration of roof structure and repositioning of dropped kerb to align with the existing drive. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for proposed garage with glazed link at Longfield House, Main Street, Gumley, Leicestershire, LE16 7RU in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: 26/00276/FUL and the plans submitted with it subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission; 2) The development hereby permitted shall be maintained in accordance with the following approved plans: location plan (3376/5), dropped kerb (3376/6), proposed floor plans, elevations and roof plan (3376/4); 3) Prior to their installation/use on site details/samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, windows and doors of the extension hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details/samples. 4) All mitigation measures and/or works shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the Preliminary Roost Assessment (Haslam Ecology, February 2026) as already submitted with the planning application and agreed in principle with the local planning authority prior to determination. This may include the appointment of an appropriately competent person e.g. an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) to provide on-site ecological expertise during construction. The appointed person shall undertake all activities, and works shall be carried out, in accordance with the approved details. 5) Prior to any works above slab level a Biodiversity Enhancement Layout for biodiversity enhancements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The content of the Biodiversity Enhancement Layout shall include the following: a) detailed designs or product descriptions for biodiversity enhancements; and Appeal Decision 6010514 2 b) locations, orientations and heights for biodiversity enhancements on appropriate drawings. The enhancement measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation and all features shall be retained in that manner thereafter. 1) Should any new external lighting be required in association with the extension hereby approved, prior to installation, a “lighting design strategy for biodiversity” in accordance with Guidance Note 08/23 (Institute of Lighting Professionals) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall: a) identify those areas/features on site that are particularly sensitive for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance in or around their breeding sites and resting places or along important routes used to access key areas of their territory, for example, for foraging; and b) show how and where external lighting will be installed (through provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent the above species using their territory or having access to their breeding sites and resting places. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the scheme and maintained thereafter in accordance with the scheme. Under no circumstances should any other external lighting be installed without prior consent from the local planning authority. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the impact of the proposal upon the character of the host dwelling, the streetscene and the character and appearance of the Gumley Conservation Area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is a detached dwelling, of relatively recent construction, located within the Gumley Conservation Area (CA) as well as being in close proximity to a number of designated heritage assets – the closest being Hall Farm Stables (Grade II) and Rose Cottage (Grade II). Given that the site is within the CA, as well as being in the locality of listed buildings, there is a requirement to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings in Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as well as Section 66(1) of that Act respectively. I acknowledge that the proposal is one which has evolved from a previous refusal but, regardless of the level of changes stated to have (or not) occurred, I have determined the case which is before me upon its own merits. 4. There are three elements to the proposed extensions - a front extension, side extension and a rear extension. The extensions, cumulatively, propose alterations to the roof structure which is a key element of the scheme upon which a large amount of the Council’s concern appears to be based in terms of perceived impact. The proposed works would increase the overall scale and massing of the host dwelling, changing the roofline and introducing a hipped roof. The Appeal Decision 6010514 3 extension/alterations to the roof would also be slightly greater in height than the existing ridge and would result in a clear change from the simple, contemporary, design of the existing dwelling as a result of its pitched form, high gable and coping stones. The proposal would increase the bulk and presence of the dwelling; however, I do not find that this would erode the established hierarchy nor that it would introduce a more assertive form that would result in unacceptable visual competition with the surrounding heritage assets at Rose Cottage and Hall Farm Stables, or within the CA in general. 5. It is acknowledged that character and appearance, are separate matters and that the CA is not solely dependent on prominent views but I do not find that the proposal in its current form would negatively contribute to, or impact upon, the character and appearance of the CA and I do not find that the proposal would overwhelm or diminish the character of the wider CA as a designated heritage asset. The properties within Gumley are a mix of ages, heights and materials. The proposal would preserve the ultimate objectives of the CA noted within the Conservation Officer’s comments in so far as the CA’s special interest lies partly in the way the village developed in subservience to Gumley Hall (now demolished). 6. The appeal site is set back from Main Street bounded to the front by a brick wall and a substantial, solid, electric (sliding) gate. There are trees, and established vegetation, along the front boundary as well as a substantial outbuilding forward of the principal elevation on the driveway. The host dwelling, in terms of slab level, is lower than the level of Main Street. Natural and general views of the front of the host dwelling are limited to that between two trees at the point of access from the road unless specifically looking at, or for, the property standing against the boundary wall looking into the appeal site. The set back from the road, and the site levels, limit the property’s general visibility/visual interest within the general street scene from the front. Further down Main Road, clearer views of the side (southeast) elevation of the host dwelling are available, from this approach and across the driveway to Fenleigh House. The presence of the appeal site dwelling already effectively obscures any views of the buildings behind it (to the northwest of the appeal site) from such viewpoints within Main Street. 7. Due to the setting and siting of the dwelling I do not find that, visually, the proposal would compete or detract with the closest listed building (Hall Farm Stables). The building is located immediately adjacent to the roadside and whilst I acknowledge the proposal stands within the immediate locality and general setting, I do not find that it would visually detract nor impact upon the setting of Hall Farm Stables which is notably more prominent within the street scene within the CA as demonstrated by the Council’s own photographs on the final page of their delegated report. Views of the host dwelling, are available in terms of the side elevation, as noted above, but due to the angle at which the other listed building closest to the appeal site is located (Rose Cottage) I do not find that this would visually compete or detract in key views or setting due to the views being through the site with general intervisibility that does not lead to realistic competition or reduced ability to appreciate the designated heritage asset in question. 8. The extensions would change the appearance of the dwelling, but I do not find that this would result in greater visual dominance or prominence within the CA due to the combination of the set-back and site levels noted above. The immediate site characteristics would appropriately allow the proposed extensions to be Appeal Decision 6010514 4 accommodated. I do not find that change, or that a proposal is able to be seen, necessarily equates to harm in this and, therefore, there is no harm which is required to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 9. It is acknowledged that Harborough Local Plan 2019 (LP) Policy GD3 allows for minor extensions to existing dwellings that are subordinate in scale and appearance. The extensions would not necessarily be subordinate but the objective of LP Policy GD3 is to prevent development that would harm the intrinsic value and rural character of the countryside. For the reasons set out, based upon the site characteristics, I find the proposal would still be consistent with the objectives of that policy. In addition to this the appellant has set out that the surveyors of the original Local Authority Building Control warranty have acknowledged a material damage claim which ultimately requires the roof to be replaced due to being fundamentally flawed in both design and materials. 10. The existing roof design and materials have effectively failed which has resulted in a material damage claim in the context of the original warranty. I acknowledge that the structural deficiencies and failures identified by the appellant are not matters to which I can attach significant weight, as they do not, in themselves, constitute material planning considerations. Nevertheless, I do not consider it appropriate to disregard entirely the context within which the proposal has come forward. The submission before me indicates that the existing roof has experienced structural problems and water ingress, which have informed the appellant’s rationale for seeking an alternative roof design at the appeal site. 11. The Council do not dispute the appellant’s claims as to the issues stated to have been experienced with the roof. In this regard, whilst my assessment is based primarily on the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the dwelling, the CA and adjacent heritage assets, I recognise that retaining the existing roof arrangement without appropriate remedial intervention, in the form of an alternative design solution, could lead to the continued deterioration of the building over time. Such deterioration and ad-hoc attempt at repairs or ongoing work has the potential to result in a more harmful effect on the site and the character and appearance of the CA than the roof alterations now proposed. 12. The proposal would be visible in the public domain; however, I do not find that the visibility of the proposal would cause harm to the existing property, the street scene, the CA or neighbouring listed buildings sufficient to warrant refusal or require harm to be weighed against the public benefits. The proposal would therefore be consistent with LP Policy GD8 which seeks to achieve a high standard of design which respects local character to ensure that proposals are integrated as far as possible into existing built form and LP Policy HC1 which permits development affecting a CA where it preserves the character or appearance of the CA and where it will conserve the significance, character, appearance and setting of a heritage asset. 13. Development Management Supplementary Planning Document 2021 (Notes 2 and 6) seek to ensure appropriate design with Note 6 setting out residential extension design principles. The SPD, ultimately, seeks to ensure a high standard of design to house extensions and alterations to ensure proposed new work is appropriate to the character and appearance of an existing property and to the street scene and landscape around the property. For the reasons set out I find that the proposal would be consistent with the objectives of this guidance. Appeal Decision 6010514 5 14. The proposal would also be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (paragraph 135) which seeks to ensure that proposals function well and add to the overall quality of the area as well as being sympathetic to local character and history while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change. The proposal would also be consistent with Section 16 in terms of giving great weight to an asset’s conservation – in this case the setting of adjacent listed buildings as well as the CA itself. Other Matters 15. I note comments made within the application process, including both objections and supporting comments. I have dealt with matters relating to design and massing in the context of the main issue above. The Council have not raised any concerns with regard to neighbouring residential amenity with regard to overlooking, privacy or light. Based upon my site visit, the positioning of the adjacent properties and the evidence before me I have no reason conclude differently on such matter with particular regard to Hall Farm. Concerns are noted regarding drainage relating to the dropped kerb, which is not part of the refusal reason, however, an application to the County Council would be required in relation to the proposed changes. Such an application would require acceptable design solutions for standard drainage. Conditions 16. A time condition is attached to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. A condition requiring the development to be in accordance with the approved plans is required to control and define the development which is granted consent. A materials condition requiring submission of samples external materials, including windows and doors, is required to ensure an appropriate finish. 17. The ecology and biodiversity planning advice consultee response noted that, should the proposal be approved, three conditions should be applied. I have considered and applied these conditions. Conditions requiring works to be undertaken in accordance with the Preliminary Roost Assessment, requiring a biodiversity enhancement layout and controls over lighting design strategy t is required to protect and conserve priority species as appropriate. I have, however, amended the lighting condition trigger point. If further lighting is required, in association with the approved extensions then the condition requires details to be submitted and approved prior to installation. I do not see it reasonable to require submission of a lighting design strategy for an existing site unless new lighting, as a result of the proposals, was specifically required. Conclusion 18. For the reasons outlined above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions. Eleni Marshall INSPECTOR