- Decision
- dismissed, 7 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: David Cross
- Authority
- Leicester (East Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6009208
- Application reference
- 20251446
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Second-floor flat-roofed extension and front balcony to church (F1)
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- L2(1)(d)(i), DP3(1)
- Development plan policies
- Leicester Local Plan 2026 DQP01, DQP06
- Main issues
- character and appearance; privacy
Summary
A flat-roofed second-floor extension above the modern wing of a traditional corner church in Leicester was dismissed for harm to character. The inspector tested it against L2(1)(d)'s airspace and corner-building provision. Because the extension is set back from the corner, it does not benefit from the "larger buildings at street corners" exception, and it would not be "consistent with the overall street scene" (DL ¶13).
Issues and findings
- L2(1)(d)(i): FAIL. "the proposal would be set back from the corner, and this arrangement contributes to its incongruous appearance … the proposal would not be consistent with the overall street scene and would not be a sensitive redevelopment" (DL ¶13).
- DP3: FAIL. "substantial harm to the character and appearance of the host building and the area … conflict with the design and street scene requirements of Policies L2 and DP3 of the Framework" (DL ¶14).
- Benefits. Office space got limited weight. The accessibility lift was not shown to depend on this scale of extension (DL ¶18-19).
Planning balance
Plan-led: conflict "with the development plan and the Framework when read as a whole" (DL ¶20). There was no S4 formula and no DP3(3) "should be refused".
What made the difference
Siting. The L2 corner exception protects height at the corner itself. A box set back behind the historic building's roofline cannot claim it.
Transferable points
- L2(1)(d)(i)'s street-corner allowance applies to buildings at the corner. A set-back upward extension on a corner site does not qualify (DL ¶13).
- "Substantial harm" language is used for design harm outside the heritage context (DL ¶14).
- A benefit that could be delivered without the harmful scale (here a lift) gets reduced weight (DL ¶19).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| L2(1)(d)(i) | fail | upward extension set back from corner so not the "larger buildings … at street corners" exception; "would not be consistent with the overall street scene and would not be a sensitive redevelopment. It would therefore conflict with the relevant considerations of Policy L2" (DL 13) | |
| DP3(1) | fail | boxy flat roof jars with pitched church and terraces; "substantial harm to the character and appearance" (DL 8-14); DP3(3) "should be refused" not quoted — conclusion is plan-led s38(6) | |
| L2(1)(d)(ii) | pass | side windows removed by amendment; "Framework … seeks to provide acceptable living standards … in terms of privacy" met (DL 15-16) | |
| E2 | benefit | limited | code mapped by harvester — small amount of office space (DL 18) |
| HC4 | benefit | code mapped by harvester — lift improves accessibility (PSED considered) but not shown to need extension of this scale (DL 19) |
Key facts
- Newly adopted Leicester Local Plan 2026 applied (DL 4)
- Parties consulted on revised Framework (DL 5)
Related decisions
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.