Appeal 3327182

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the street scene.

The appeal site, [site address] (No.33), is a three-bedroomed house which sits within a suburban street of similar, largely semi-detached two storey houses, dating from the mid-twentieth century. These predominantly feature a hipped roof and central chimney stack, some with projecting bays to the principal room at ground or in some cases both, storeys, and appear as a consistent row of dwelling pairs such that variations arising from alteration or extension1 are generally not obtrusive within an overall consistency of appearance. No.33 is, however, a dwelling which retains, in so far as the street scene is concerned, its original form, making a positive contribution to local distinctiveness.

The proposal intends to replace the existing side garage and provide additional accommodation on two levels together with conversion of the loft space, access to which would be by stairs located in the extension. To achieve the desired accommodation the hipped roof would be subsumed into a side extension which would project forward of the principal elevation in a gabled bay. This would introduce two significant and uncharacteristic changes to the form of the building; the front gabled bay and the hip to side gable extension which is of only partial depth. These features would be entirely alien to the dwelling typology as I have explained it and unduly prominent in the street scene. As is 1 Or are detached and of asymmetric design such as opposite the appeal site apparent in nearby dwellings even when alterations do not fully accord with design guidance2, the retention of a predominantly hipped roof and eaves alignment to principal elevations can, with care, allow extensions to be visually integrated without being unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene. I consider the combined effect of what is proposed would unacceptably disrupt the even visual rhythm of [address] and would therefore be contrary to the [name] embodied in Policy SP55 of the [name] and Policies Local Plan 2018 which seeks design of high quality that contributes positively to local character and distinctiveness and to Policy CS28 of the Rotherham Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 which seeks development that is visually attractive and responds to context.

In coming to this conclusion I have had regard to the appellant’s statement of circumstances. Although this is a matter to which some weight might be applied, there is nothing before me to show that the desired accommodation cannot be provided in ways which do not cause the harm I have identified. I have also noted the examples of other development provided by the appellant, however such images do not relate to the specific circumstances of this appeal and cannot be, of themselves, a justification for visual harm. Consequently, considering all matters raised the appeal cannot succeed.