Appeal 3281849

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the formation of rooms in the roofspace including the raising of the roof height and the extension of the roof over the existing flat roof at [site address] , [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: RB2021/1055, dated 7 June 2021, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: [name] 1:500 and 1:1250 [name] 2021, Proposed ground floor plan Scale 1:50 [name] 2021, Proposed loft floor plan Scale 1:50 [name] 2021, Proposed elevations Scale 1:100 Date 10 July 2021, Proposed long sections Scale 1:100 [name] 2021, Proposed section detail and proposed long section details Scale 1:50 and 1:100 [name] 2021

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the planning application form. I have utilised the description that is set out in the Council’s decision notice in my decision paragraph because it more accurately describes the proposal, in particular as it also refers to the extension of the roof over the existing flat roof.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No 198) by way of visual impact and outlook.

The appeal property is located on rising land along [address]. It lies over split levels with a garage at the lower level and the living accommodation on the level above. There is a shallow angled roof with a central ridge. On the rear elevation there is a flat roofed extension, and on the side facing No 198 there is a raised side porch and an open sided structure. The rear garden is set at a higher level again.

The neighbouring property at No [address] 2 storey house. It is at a lower ground level than the appeal property and is set forward of it. The shared boundary is well enclosed by a close boarded fence and the side elements of the appeal property, including with No 198’s rear garden. Beyond, there is a sizeable hedgerow which also forms the boundaries with the rear gardens of properties on [address] to the south. On the opposite side of the site, residential properties on [address] are in proximity to the boundary and this includes rear box dormer roof extensions that face over the site.

The proposal would involve raising the existing roof ridge by 1 metre. The roof would then be extended back over the existing rear extension. The Council’s Rotherham Local Plan Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2020) (SPD) states that, amongst other considerations, an extension close to a private garden should not have an overbearing effect on the neighbouring property or an unreasonable effect on its outlook.

Under the proposal, the eaves height nearest No 198 would remain unchanged and the roof would then angle back from the boundary as it increases in height. Hence, where the increase in height would be at its greatest, it would be well away from the boundary with No 198’s garden. This includes both where the existing roof ridge height would be increased and where it would extend back over the existing rear extension.

The difference in land levels between the 2 properties needs to be considered in the context of the moderate increase in the height of the appeal property that would result and that such an increase would be away from the boundary. The effect on the outlook from the rear garden of No 198 would thus not be significantly affected and accentuated compared to the current relationship between the 2 properties, and so the proposal would not have an over dominant visual impact.

There would not be a particular conflict with the SPD arising from the proposal because the height would only increase away from the boundary and due to the extent of the increase of the height. In taking these considerations together, the siting and position of the proposal over what is the existing built footprint of the appeal property would not cause a significant overbearing effect.

I conclude that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] of visual impact and outlook. As such, it would comply with Policy SP55 of the Local Plan Sites and Policies (2018) where it states that all forms of development are required to be of high quality, incorporate inclusive design principles and create decent living environments, and where consideration is to be given to the setting of the site, amongst other considerations.

The proposal would also comply with the SPD as it would not cause undue harm to neighbouring amenity. It would also accord with the National Planning Policy Framework where it concerns a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

In respect of other living conditions matters, the proposal would also not be unacceptable. The dwellings on [address] are well separated from the site and the gardens are not located directly adjacent to where the proposal would be sited. The properties on [address] are already themselves positioned close to the site and at a higher level. There would not be undue effects on the occupiers of these properties concerning visual impact, outlook and light.

The proposed rooflights would be angled in the respective roof planes so that views would be upwards rather than directly over neighbouring properties. They would also be secondary windows for the respective living accommodation. Privacy levels would thus be adequately maintained.

As the proposal is for a householder development, construction effects in relation to noise and, if it arises, dust should be of a short duration. I am not unsympathetic as regards particular personal circumstances that have been raised, but this would not warrant withholding planning permission for such a development. Matters in relation to whether or not the proposal is needed are not for my consideration because my decision is based on the planning issues.

With the fairly modest increase in height, the proposal would not be out of keeping with regard to the effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would sit comfortably between No 198 and the neighbouring property on [address]. It would also largely maintain the overall appearance of the existing property, as viewed from the streetscene.

In addition to the timescale for implementation, I have imposed a condition concerning the approved plans which detail the proposal. These exclude indicative and existing plans. This condition is imposed for the purposes of certainty. I have also imposed a condition by way of the external materials to match the existing building. This is in order to protect the character and appearance of the building and the area. It would not be reasonable and necessary to apply controls to the proposed rooflights as undue overlooking would not result and as their approved positioning is as shown on the submitted plans.

For the reasons set out above and having regard to all matters that have been raised, the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions.