Appeal 3328745

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed extensions on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene of [address] and [address].

The appeal property (No 41) is a two-storey semi-detached house with a mono-pitched roof. Its attached neighbour has a different elevational design and is set at a slightly lower level, just forward of No 41. Together, the pair forms an off-set dual pitch roof. The appeal property stands on a prominent corner plot in an estate of similar dwellings which are detached, in pairs, or arranged in short terraces. The part of the estate around the appeal site has a spacious feel because of the open frontages and buildings set back from junctions.

It is proposed to erect a two-storey side extension with a single storey front porch extension across part of it. The scheme has been revised following a dismissed appeal (reference APP/J4423/D/22/3308807) in which the Inspector concluded that the width of the two-storey extension and consequent loss of openness would lead to incongruous and harmful development exacerbated by the extension standing forward of the building line in [address], making it unduly obtrusive in the street scene.

The height and width of the two-storey extension have been reduced. The design of the now smaller porch extension would be acceptable. I agree with the previous Inspector that a dual pitched roof would not in itself appear out of place in the street scene or unsympathetic to the host dwelling. However, even though its ridge height would be lower than shown previously and it would be set back, the overall width of the side extension would still appear unsympathetic to the original property, including the main roof. This would result in a dominant extension. The flank elevation of the resulting building would remain significantly closer to [address], reducing the openness at the corner to an unacceptable degree, even when the front extension of [address] is taken into account.

The design of the extensions would respect the local vernacular in terms of the proposed materials and windows design. There would be no harm to the appearance of the pair of semi-detached houses or to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Nevertheless, the overall scale of the extension, resulting particularly from its width, would result in a dominant and visually jarring addition, notwithstanding the generous size of the plot.

I conclude that the width, design and location of the two-storey extension on this prominent, open corner would materially harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene of [address] and [address]. For these reasons there would be conflict with Policies H14 and BE5 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan; the design requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and with the guidance set out in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance, [address] Extensions. In summary, and amongst other things, they require extensions to be sympathetic to local character and designed with a scale and character that complements the original and surrounding buildings.

The proposed extensions would provide the appellants with improved accommodation that would meet their particular needs, would be an effective use of land and the construction of the development would provide a wider economic benefit. Whilst these matters are important, they do not outweigh the identified harm to the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.