It is the opinion of the local planning authority that the proposal, in respect of the alterations and extensions to the dwelling at No 18, by reason of its scale, mass, proportion, height and use of materials, would result in a prominent and incongruous development that would not respond positively to its context or promote or enhance local distinctiveness and would not represent high quality design, to the detriment of visual amenity. Moreover, the proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset, that of the Seagrave Conservation Area. In such cases, Paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework advises that permission should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the harm is necessary to achieve public benefit that would outweigh that harm. The proposal is not considered to have such benefits. For these reasons, the scheme would be contrary to Policies CS2 and CS14 of the Charnwood Local Plan 2011-2028 Core Strategy, saved Policies EV/1 and H/17 of the adopted Borough of Charnwood Local Plan, the Council's adopted Design Supplementary Planning Document (January 2020), Seagrave Conservation Area Character Appraisal, the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Design Guide. It would also be contrary to the statutory requirements of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation) Act 1990.

There is potential for bats to be present at the existing dwelling. In the absence of evidence that the proposal would not cause harm to protected species or their habitats and that mitigation can be provided, as appropriate, the proposal would be contrary to Policy CS13 of the Charnwood Local Plan as well as Paragraph 180 of the NPPF which requires local planning authorities to refuse planning permission for developments that do not mitigate the impact of significant harm to biodiversity.

The proposal, in respect of extensions and alterations to the dwelling at No 18, would by reason of its height, siting and proximity to No 22, have a damaging impact on the living environment of that property in terms of loss of outlook generally and loss of sunlight and daylight, particularly in respect of its garden. In addition, it is considered that the proposal would result in a loss of privacy of No 20 which would be damaging to the living environment of that property. The proposal would, therefore, be contrary to Policy CS2 of the Charnwood Local Plan 2011-2028 Core Strategy, saved Policies EV/1 and H/17 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan (2004), the Council's adopted Design Supplementary Planning Document (2020) and the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Design Guide which, amongst other things, seek to provide a high standard of amenity.