Garage roof alteration at 50 Woodlands Drive, Groby, Leicester

What was proposed

The application sought to vary two conditions so an attached garage could have a dual-pitched roof and first-floor living accommodation.

“This application seeks planning permission for the variation of both conditions by altering the flat-roof of the attached garage to a dual-pitched gable form, providing living accommodation at first floor level, above the garage.”

“The roof would measure approximately 7.6m to ridge height and 3.4m to eaves height. At the rear elevation, the extension would include a gabled dormer at first-floor level serving an en-suite and a set of patio doors at ground floor level, serving a home gym. At the principal elevation, the proposal would retain the up-and-over garage door at ground floor but incorporate a ‘Velux’- style rooflight at the front facing pitch, serving a dressing room at first-floor level.”

Officer report

The site

The property is a two-storey corner dwelling with an attached side extension, a large front garden and neighbouring bungalows nearby.

“The existing property of 50 Woodlands Drive, Groby consists of a two-storey dwelling with an attached single storey side extension. The dwelling is located on a corner of a cul-de-sac which is defined by the neighbouring bungalows of a mix of designs and materials.”

“The property benefits from a large front garden which provides off-street parking provision and includes a low-level boundary wall and existing shrubbery.”

Officer report

Planning history

Permission was granted in May 2026 for extensions and alterations, while two earlier applications were also permitted.

“Two-storey side extension, two-storey extension and canopy to front elevation, single-storey rear extension, and replacement of extant flat roof. • Permitted • 13.05.2026”

“Alterations and extensions. • Permitted • 03.01.1989”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the extension would cause unacceptable overbearing impact, loss of light and loss of privacy for a neighbouring property.

“The rear elevation and proposed dormer window (serving a bathroom) of the proposed two-storey side extension would be positioned approximately 8m from the nearest front elevation window serving No. Woodlands Drive to the north. The Council's Good Design Guide advises a separation distance of 14m between a habitable room of a single storey property and a two storey property to ensure adequate space between buildings, and to limit unacceptable overlooking impacts.”

“Considering the above, the proposed extension would result in unacceptable harm to the amenity of No. Woodlands Drive, specifically loss of light, overbearing, and loss of privacy impacts. As such, the proposal would conflict with Policy DM10 of the adopted SADMP, Paragraph 135(f) of the NPPF, and the Council’s Good Design Guide.”

Officer report

Residents’ views

Two neighbours objected over overlooking, scale, appearance, overshadowing, loss of outlook and construction disturbance, while five supported the design.

“One objector raised concerns regarding continued overlooking and disturbance from the proposed bathroom window, notwithstanding the requirement for obscure glazing. Concerns are also expressed regarding the scale and prominence of the dwelling, which is considered disproportionately large in relation to the surrounding properties and out of keeping with the character of the cul-de-sac.”

“Five letters of support have been submitted from neighbouring dwellings. These letters are in support of the application stating a dual-pitched roof form is a design betterment over the previously approved flat-roof.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent spoke during consideration of the application.

Members’ discussion

Members considered the planning issues but gave importance to neighbouring support and considered the proposal acceptable with suitable conditions.

“Members acknowledged the planning considerations listed in the report, but considered the letters of support from neighbouring properties to be important. It was suggested that the proposal was acceptable, on the basis that appropriate conditions were applied.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted planning permission and delegated authority to the Head of Planning to apply appropriate conditions.

“It was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Lynch, and:”

“RESOLVED: Planning permission be granted, with delegated authority given to the Head if Planning to apply the appropriate conditions.”

Minutes