Appeal 3310655

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: a) the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and area; and, b) the living conditions of No.[address] through overbearing and overshadowing.

The surrounding area is characterised by two storey dwellings which are predominantly semi-detached properties. [address] has two distinct characterised in terms of roof form which includes rows of gable roofed properties, which transitions to hipped roof properties. No. [site address] is located amongst the hipped roofed properties found along the street. The street is largely uniformed in terms of its pattern and includes regular spacing between semi-detached pairings contributing towards the rhythm of development along the street.

The proposed two storey side extension would extend to the side boundary of the plot and does not include any set back or reduction in ridge height. No.83 has been extended to its boundary with No.81 and proposed development would result in the gap between the two properties being lost in its entirety, leading to a terracing effect within the streetscene. The lack of any set back, along with the design and scale of the extension, would result in an extension which fails to be subordinate to the existing dwelling. Furthermore, the lack of any set back of the side extension would mean that any mismatch in materials would be more apparent. This would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

The proposed design of the extensions, which includes a hip to gable roof, and full width two storey and dormer extensions to the rear, would appear unduly bulky and amount to disproportionate additions to the dwelling and, as such, would fail to respect the form of the existing dwelling, resulting in an unacceptable loss of its original character.

The scale and design of the extensions, and in particular the hip to gable roof design, would significantly unbalance the semi-detached pairing which would retain a hipped roof. Furthermore, the proposals would result in a roof form which would be at odds with the prevailing hipped roof character of this part of [address]. This would be further exacerbated by the scale, design and siting of the rear dormer extension which would add further vertical emphasis and prominence to the extension which would be visible from the streetscene.

On the first main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the dwelling, and that of the wider area. Therefore, the proposed development conflicts with Sheffield Unitary Development Plan Policy BE5, which requires for good design in development and that extensions should respect the scale, form, detail and materials of the original building; Policy H14 which requires extensions to be well designed and be in scale and character with neighbouring buildings; and the guidance contained within the [address] [name], with particular regard to Guideline 1 and Guideline 2.

The proposed development includes part two storey, part single storey extensions to the rear of the dwelling. The extension would be built to the boundary with No.[address]. Within the rear elevation of No.79 are rear facing habitable room windows at both ground floor and first floor.

The appeal dwelling has an existing single storey rear projection with a shallow pitched roof, and which is sited adjacent to the boundary with No.79. The proposed extensions would be of greater projection along the boundary than existing and would also be of considerably greater mass. Given the scale of the proposals and its proximity to habitable windows, it is considered that the extension would result in an unacceptable degree of overshadowing to that property which would be detrimental to neighbouring living conditions. Furthermore, I consider that the visual mass of the extension, along with its siting on the boundary would result in a form of development which would appear overbearing to the occupants of the neighbouring property.

On the second main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of No.[address] through overshadowing and overbearing. I find no particular conflict with the wording of Sheffield Unitary Development Plan Policy BE5, which appears to relate solely to matters of design. However, the proposed development would conflict with Sheffield Unitary Development Plan Policy H14 which requires that development should not deprive residents of light; and the guidance contained within Guideline 5 of the [address] [name].

I have had regard to other developments on [address], which have been cited by the appellant, including those at No.69 and No.83, which I observed on my site visit. I do not have full details of the circumstances under which these extensions were carried out, but there would appear to be material differences between those developments and the proposals before me. In any event, I have considered the proposal on its merits and identified that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the dwelling, wider streetscene and living conditions of No.[address].

With regard to potential for development at No.[address], I am not aware that the site benefits from an extant planning permission. Even if planning permission had been granted for that site, there is no mechanism before me to provide certainty that the neighbouring development would be carried out simultaneously with the proposed development. In any event, this would not overcome the design harm that I have identified in the first main issue.

For the above reasons, the development conflicts with the Development Plan when considered as a whole, and there are no material considerations which outweigh the harm identified. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.