15 Sextant Road (land fronting Thurncourt Road), Leicester

Decision

dismissed, 10 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Richard Snow

Authority

Leicester (East Midlands)

Appeal reference

6010557

Application reference

20251368

Procedure

written representations

Development

One 1-bed bungalow in rear garden with landscaping, parking and fencing

Homes

1

Site context

inside settlement

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S4(1), L2(1)(d)(ii)

Development plan policies

Leicester Local Plan 2020-2036 (adopted 9 June 2026) DQP01, DQP05, DQP06

Main issues

living conditions of future occupiers; character and appearance

Summary

A 1-bed bungalow in the rear garden of a Leicester house, fronting a side road. Dismissed. The inspector found it fitted the street scene, but its future occupiers would have poor outlook and light in every main habitable room and a shallow, walled-in garden. Because L2(1)(d)'s substantial weight is "contingent" on acceptable living standards, it did not apply, and the S4 presumption failed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "The parties were invited to comment and the response received has been taken into account" (DL ¶5). A new Local Plan was adopted on 9 June 2026 and the parties commented on it (DL ¶4).
• Future occupiers — DQP05/DQP06, L2(1)(d)(ii): FAIL. "for the majority of the time that the room was occupied, a vehicle would be parked in front of this window" (DL ¶8). The hedge "falls outside of the ownership and therefore control of the appellant, and its maintenance to any given height could not therefore be assured" (DL ¶9). "none of the main habitable rooms of the proposed dwelling would be provided with acceptable outlook" (DL ¶11); a daylight/sunlight assessment was not needed to reach that view (DL ¶11). The garden, enclosed by a retaining wall plus a 2 m fence, "would create an oppressive environment for occupiers" (DL ¶13).
• SPD fell away. The 2008 SPD "was not saved as part of the adoption of the LP. Accordingly, its guidance on garden sizes is no longer extant", but the inspector still found the garden unacceptable (DL ¶14).
• Character — DQP01/DQP05: PASS. "the proposed bungalow would not appear incongruous or unduly dominant in the street scene" (DL ¶18); acceptable even if the frontage hedge went (DL ¶20).

Planning balance

Conflict with DQP05/DQP06 given "significant weight" as the policies are consistent with the Framework (DL ¶22). S3 → S4 (DL ¶23). On L2: "this support is contingent on development providing acceptable living standards for residents in terms of access to daylight, sunlight and external amenity space … the proposal conflicts with Policy L2" (DL ¶24). "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶25). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶26).

What made the difference

The internal layout: every main habitable room was compromised (bedroom behind a parked car, living room facing a hedge the appellant did not control, obscure-glazed kitchen), and the garden was shallow and enclosed by a retaining wall with a fence on top. Because L2(1)(d)(ii) failed, the scheme lost the L2 "substantial weight". The benefits were not quantified and appear to have been small. A bungalow with clear-glazed outlook onto its own garden would probably have succeeded, since character was acceptable.

Transferable points

• L2(1)(d) substantial weight for additional units in residential curtilages is conditional; failing L2(1)(d)(ii) (daylight, sunlight, external amenity) removes it and becomes a conflict with L2 (DL ¶24).
• A living-conditions failure alone for one dwelling can meet the S4 "substantially outweighed" threshold (DL ¶25).
• Reliance on a hedge outside the appellant's control for outlook or screening is not accepted (DL ¶¶9, 20).
• Lapsed SPD standards do not stop an inspector finding amenity space inadequate on its merits (DL ¶14).
• A formal daylight/sunlight assessment is not needed where the harm is obvious from layout (DL ¶11).
• Same inspector as PINS-6011373 (Selston), with the same S4 framing: plan conflict given "significant weight", then S4 "does not point to permission being granted" (DL ¶25).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• 1-bed bungalow meeting NDSS in the rear garden of No 15, fronting Thurncourt Road
• Bedroom window recessed behind a car-parking space; living room 'outlook' onto a third-party hedge above window height (DL 8-9)
• Kitchen main window obscure-glazed; side door next to 2 m fence (DL 10)
• Ground lowered; rear garden shallow and enclosed by retaining wall topped by 2 m fence (DL 13)
• Residential Amenity SPD 2008 garden standards fell away on adoption of the new Local Plan in June 2026 (DL 14)
• Supply position not stated; costs application made (separate decision)

Related decisions

• PINS-6011373

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.