Proposed single storey extension to existing dwelling and provision for a new parking area

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 September 2026 by Eleni Marshall BSc (hons) MSc FRICS FAAV MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6013317 Lodge Farm, The Sheeling, Overton, Ibstock, Leicestershire, LE67 6PD • 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 Elaine Cantwell against North West Leicestershire District Council. • The application Ref is 26/00196/FUL. • The development proposed is proposed single storey extension to existing dwelling and provision for a new parking area. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for proposed single storey extension to existing dwelling and provision for a new parking area at Lodge Farm, The Sheeling, Overton, Ibstock, Leicestershire, LE67 6PD in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: 26/00196/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 27 01 26 drwg no 001 Rev A, proposed site plan 09 02 25 drawing no 002 Revision A, proposed elevations 02 02 26 drawing no 006 and proposed floor plans 27 01 26 drawing no 004; 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. Procedural Matters 2. Since the determination of this application, and submission of this appeal, the Government issued the new revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework 2026 (the Framework). The appellant has provided a supplementary document/further commentary relating to these changes which I have taken into consideration. 3. I have utilised the Council’s description of the proposal as it describes the proposal more concisely. 4. This appeal is accompanied by an application for costs. This is subject to a separate decision. Appeal Decision 6013317 2 Main Issue 5. The main issue is the impact of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the existing converted dwelling and its plan form. Reasons 6. The appeal site stands within an agricultural and rural landscape where the Council outline that traditional agricultural buildings are typically of brick and tile construction and of simple linear form with some being arranged in a courtyard such as the adjacent properties at former Lodge Farm. The host dwelling is a converted brick and slate tiled farm building of linear form comprising two connected single storey elements with one having larger proportions. The conversion of the building, by virtue of planning permission 13/00284/FUL, has retained the simplicity of the built form, utilising the footprint of the original building as well as utilising existing openings. The host dwelling does, overall, reinforce the rural character of the building and clearly reads as an agricultural conversion. 7. The proposal that is before me seeks planning permission for an extension that would project centrally from the existing linear building, in a south westerly direction, which would create a T-shape. The top of the T-shape, of the extension itself, would represent the largest element of the extension and would have proportions to match the larger element of the host dwelling at a length of in the region of 6.7 metres. The eaves and ridge height would match that of the larger part of the existing building presenting a side gable of similar proportions. The extension would be connected to the host dwelling by a link extension which would be in the region of 5 metres with a width in the region of 4.2 metres and a shallower roof pitch with the ridge set below the ridge of the existing dwelling. 8. Both parties are in agreement that the proposal would represent an extension of subservient scale in terms of footprint (as a single storey extension to a single storey dwelling). National Decision-Making Policy S5 relates to the principle of development outside settlements. It states that certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements as set out within the list from a) to j) (inclusive). The listed developments should be approved, unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the National Decision-Making Policies in the Framework. Of relevance to this appeal is S5 1 c) ...extension, alteration… of an existing building, provided that the existing building is of permanent and substantial construction, is lawful in planning terms, and any extension or alteration would not result in a disproportionate increase in size compared to the existing building. 9. For the purposes of this assessment the Framework defines, in footnote 25, the existing building to be assessed as the property as existing on the date of the publication of the Framework. The host dwelling, as it stands, is therefore the existing building for the purposes of this assessment and it is evident that the building is of permanent and substantial construction and lawful in planning terms. Based upon the evidence before me I do not find that the proposal would result in a disproportionate increase in size compared to the existing building. Based upon National Decision-Making Policy S5 therefore, the proposal should be approved, unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the National Decision-Making Policies in the Framework. Appeal Decision 6013317 3 10. The Council’s refusal reason is based upon their assessment finding that the T- shaped design would be at odds with the simple linear form of the existing building and appear as an incongruous addition. The centrality of the proposed projection is stated to add to inappropriateness as an incongruous form which would detract from the traditional character and appearance of the host dwelling and fail to secure a sensitive addition to the historic plan form. The design of the proposal would, to an extent, be at odds with the existing linear form, however, I do not find that this would be inappropriate. The overall design and use of materials would result in sufficient contrast that would enable the original, historic, linear form to be clearly legible as part of the evolution and extension of the site as proposed. 11. I consider the proposal to be in proportion with the host dwelling and of a character and design which, whilst of a differing design and proposing alternative materials, would be subservient to the host dwelling providing a clear legibility and separation between old and new. In this case, the appellant has provided clear, and consistent, commentary as to the design philosophy and in this case the proposal provides an efficient central connection appropriate to the existing accommodation and avoids weakening the architectural hierarchy as a result of attempts to reproduce historic brickwork, openings or detail which would likely, comparably, obscure the chronology of the host dwelling and any extensions. 12. The elevations of the proposal would be finished externally with timber cladding with a slate roof covering, for the larger section, and metal sheet cladding to the link section. The Council outline that metal sheeting was present on the smaller section of the building historically but consider the use of timber cladding to not respect the character of the building given its traditional brick and tile construction. Whilst I acknowledge that the proposed timber cladding would be a contrast to the existing brick elevations for the reasons set out above, I find that this alternative material, still appropriate for a rural area, would positively provide clear legibility between old and new preserving the significance of the originally converted building. 13. The fenestration within the extension would be varied, however, I do not find that the inconsistency would be inappropriate given that proposed extension is to be more contemporary in design. The fenestration would be out of keeping with the simplicity of the approach to fenestration used in the conversion of the original building, however, the fenestration in the conversion was specifically designed to utilise existing openings and I find that the contrast in fenestration positively contributes to the overall proposal reading as a modern, later, addition to the original form. The existence of an alternative design does not in itself justify refusal and for the reasons set out, consideration should be given as to whether the proposal would give rise to unacceptable planning harm. In this case, for the reasons set out, I find the clear legibility and separation between old and new to be acceptable and appropriate. I do not find that the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects. 14. I note commentary regarding planning permission having been granted for a detached car port position to the north of the dwelling; however, this was ultimately discussed in relation to potential alternative locations for an extension during the course of the application. Notwithstanding this I have considered the proposal as is submitted before me on its own merits and consider the matter relating to the detached car port to be of limited merit in any case due to finding the proposal acceptable in the context of the host dwelling for the reasons set out above. Appeal Decision 6013317 4 15. Condition 4 of the original planning permission is stated by the Council to restrict the enlargement, improvement or alteration of the dwelling but ultimately such conditions are generally applied to prevent alteration of a building beyond the control of the Council through utilisation of permitted development rights. It does not prevent, or control, all future development which are to be subject to a specific application, and grant of, planning permission as appropriate depending on the merits of each case. Overall, I consider the proposed extension to be appropriately subservient in scale and one which would provide clear visual legibility between old and new. This legibility would respect the traditional character and appearance of the existing converted dwelling and its plan form. 16. The proposal would be consistent with North West Leicestershire Local Plan 2021 Policy D1 which requires developments to be based upon a robust opportunities and constraints assessment and be informed by a comprehensive site and contextual appraisal. The proposal would also be consistent with the overarching objectives of the Good Design for North West Leicestershire Supplementary Planning Document 2026 which requires extensions to support the host building, respond to the broader character of the building and have sympathy with elements of the building as well as seeking to promote high-quality design. 17. The proposal would also be consistent with the overarching objectives of the revised Framework with particular regard to National Decision-Making Policy S5 and National Decision-Making Policy DP3 which requires development proposals to respond to their context so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings (with this policy also being clear that this should not preclude innovation or change where appropriate). Other Matters 18. As confirmed within the development description the proposal also includes provision for a new parking area. The Council’s refusal reason is specific in being based upon the proposed single storey element and does not raise any issue with the provision of a new parking area. Based upon the information before me, and my site visit, I have no reason to conclude differently on this element. 19. The Council state that the amended application site area includes some land that was not included within the original application site. As noted by the Council, a red line application area does not necessarily determine curtilage. For the avoidance of doubt, I would clarify that the inclusion of the red line boundary in the plans to be conditioned in allowing this appeal does not, in any way, allude to acceptance of the red line boundary as determining the curtilage for the site going forward. Conditions 20. The Council’s questionnaire does not suggest any new conditions. 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 of external materials proposed, including windows and doors, is required to ensure an appropriate finish notwithstanding the details indicated to date on the plans and application form. Appeal Decision 6013317 5 Conclusion 21. 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