Appeal 3375150

The appeal is dismissed.

As part of the appeal submission, the appellant has put forward an alternative scheme that would reduce the size of the roof element over the single-storey extension. However, I am mindful that it is not the purpose of the appeal process to evolve a scheme and it is therefore important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what was considered by the Council. To do otherwise would prejudice the interests of the Council, interested third parties and consultees, who have not been consulted on the revised scheme and who may have observations to make. I have therefore proceeded to determine the appeal on the basis of the plans as submitted to the Council for their determination. The merits of a revised scheme would, if necessary, be a matter for the main parties to consider as part of a fresh proposal away from this appeal.

The Council considers that the proposed single-storey extension would be out of character with both the property itself and the street scene by virtue of its alignment, forward projection and angled siting and form, creating the impression of an overly intense development. However, the Council considers that all other elements of the proposal do not give rise to any significant harmful impacts upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

Therefore, based on the above, the main issue is the effect of the proposed single-storey extension element of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

The appeal property is situated in a residential area at the end of a traditional stone-faced terrace row. It is relatively unusual within the local context, being arranged over 3 floors and lacking the characteristic bay windows repeated on neighbouring terraces.

The appellant refers to an original property deed plan, which indicates the former presence of a coach house within the rear garden, in order to illustrate the irregular nature of this corner plot. Notwithstanding an existing projecting bay window at ground floor level, the appeal property sits on a building line broadly consistent with the elevated stone-built terrace row that lies to the rear. The properties on the southwestern side of [address] also follow a generally uniform building line, in contrast to the more varied building line evident on the opposite side of the street.

The proposal before me involves the demolition and rebuilding of existing single and two-storey outriggers to a greater height and footprint, in a contemporary design and external finish. Various other alterations to the dwelling and boundary treatments and the erection of an ancillary detached 2 storey outbuilding within the rear garden are also proposed.

While most of the alterations would enhance the overall appearance of the appeal site and make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area, the angled footprint, part‐flat and part mono‐pitch roof and pronounced projection towards [address] of the single-storey ground floor extension would extend well beyond the broadly consistent building line and existing bay window. This would result in an incongruous addition which would appear visually intrusive in the street scene. Although it would be partially screened from the northwest by the elevated boundary fence at [address], it would remain clearly perceptible from a range of vantage points along the adjacent highway, particularly given the changes in ground levels, with its height and contemporary materials further accentuating its prominence.

I therefore find that the proposed development, when considered as a whole, would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Consequently, in this regard it would conflict with Policies BE5 and H14 (a) of the Saved Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (March 1998) and Policy CS74 (c) of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy (March

which together seek to ensure that new development is well designed, respects the scale and form of the original building and enhances the character of the area. It would also not comply with Guideline 2 of the [address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance (undated) and the National Planning Policy Framework which requires development to be sympathetic to local character.

I acknowledge that the proposal has attracted support from neighbours and would not be detrimental to their living conditions. Nor would there be harm to highway safety and other technical matters. However, these matters are neutral factors and as such do not weigh in the developments favour.

My attention has been drawn to the current poor state of the building and that the proposals would allow for the restoration of the building, which would improve the overall appearance within the street scene and therefore align with Policy CS74 which supports design led transformation. Notwithstanding the moderate weight attributed to this benefit, I have minimal information before me that demonstrates that the benefits of the appeal scheme could not be achieved in a less harmful way. As such, this does not lead me to a different conclusion.

Criticisms laid at the Council’s handling of the application have not played into my consideration of the appeal proposal, which I have assessed solely on its planning merits.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.