Appeal 6002593

The appeal is dismissed.

The development has been substantially carried out and therefore, this appeal is being considered under section 73a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

In determining this appeal I have had regard to section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA). This requires special regard to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

The planning history includes separate planning permissions for a single dwelling, and two detached dwellings on the site, in a similar location1. The Council advise that these permissions have lapsed and there is nothing before me to indicate otherwise. Accordingly, these planning permissions have no bearing on my

Planning permission was granted in 2024 for the erection of a detached dwelling with balconies and garage on the appeal site2 (hereafter, the 2024 scheme). A dwelling has been constructed not in accordance with the approved plans.

In order to regularise the alterations made to the dwelling the appellant seeks to vary the list of plans imposed by condition 2 of the planning permission. The alterations include various changes to the buildings form, scale, siting, fenestration and external details.

The main issues are whether varying the condition in the manner proposed, would result in development that would be acceptable in planning terms, have regard to: • its effect on the character and appearance of the area, including Harthill Conservation Area; and • its effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to privacy.

The appeal site is within Harthill Conservation Area (the CA); a designated heritage asset. The CA is primarily a linear arrangement of buildings along [address] and [address], and a more informal grouping centred around [address] and the east end of [address]. There is a cohesive quality to the CA, due to the vernacular characteristics of the historic dwellings, including a simplicity in their form and proportions. They are interspersed with more recent development, which generally sits comfortably within the street scene. The larger community use buildings including the former church, public house and the leisure centre, are positioned in an area loosely arranged around the village core, and their form clearly relates to their functional uses. Overall, the CA is significant for its historic and architectural interest.

The appeal site sits within the informal cluster of buildings spaced around [address] and [address]. There is variety in the age, height and massing of dwellings and other buildings, but as the individual buildings are proportionate, there is harmony within the grouping.

The 2024 approved scheme would be set far back within the site beyond the narrow driveway frontage, with space retained between the dwelling and [address] as part of a rear garden. It would be a substantial dwelling, with balconies and large areas of glazing on the rear elevation and would have a larger massing and design than other dwellings in the vicinity. The various elements of the building however, would be proportionate, with clear elements of symmetry and architectural detailing. As such, whilst large, it would be broadly sympathetic to the harmonious character of the area.

The appeal scheme is similarly set back within the site and incorporates materials that are similar to those found locally. However, it is taller than the approved scheme with a significant extent of walling between first floor windows and eaves 2 RB2023/1512, dated 20 February 2024 and it has a greater mass generally, including the rear extension into the garden. It stands high above the level of other surrounding buildings, contrasting sharply with the modest vernacular cottages within the cluster of buildings. It also subsumes much of the garden right to the boundary with [address], giving an increased sense of confinement in a previously spacious area. The fenestration lacks symmetry and consistency, particularly on the front and side elevations, and rooflights occupy a significant amount of roof space. Taken together, this gives the dwelling a confused and incoherent appearance. The lack of architectural details such as chimneys, quoins and coped gables, mean that the dwelling fails to reflect or respond to local dwelling characteristics. Overall, it’s discordant appearance and massing, significantly harms the character and quality of the area.

The appellant refers to examples of dwellings at [address] and terraces a short distance away on [address]. However in both examples the dwellings are cohesive in their design and proportions and are not directly comparable to the development that is before me.

Paragraph 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is clear that good design is a fundamental and key aspect of sustainable development. Policy CS28 of the Core Strategy3 requires design to take all opportunities to improve the character and quality of an area. Whilst some changes to the design are minor, it is the sum of all the amendments that have a significantly adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. The degree of harm to the significance of the CA would be less than substantial, at the higher end of the scale, due to the effect the development would have on the manner in which this part of the CA would be appreciated. This harm attracts considerable importance and weight.

It is therefore necessary for me to weigh this harm against the public benefits of the scheme as required by paragraph 215 of the Framework. I am mindful of economic benefits associated with the provision of a new dwelling including from spend in the local area, and its siting on an infill plot in a sustainable location. However, much the same benefits would have been generated had the development been built in accordance with the 2024 approved scheme. Therefore, public benefits do not outweigh the harm caused to the significance of the designated heritage asset.

I therefore conclude that varying the condition in the manner proposed, results in development that significantly harms the character and appearance of the area, including by failing to preserve the character and appearance of Harthill Conservation Area. This conflicts with the relevant provisions of Policies CS23, CS28, SP41 and SP55 of the Local Plan. Together, these policies require the conservation and enhancement of the character or appearance of conservation areas, and development that respects and enhances the distinctive features of Rotherham, amongst other things.

The Council refers to Policy SP40 in its refusal reason, however there is no evidence before me that the proposal will affect a Listed Building or its setting. Accordingly, I find no conflict with this policy. 3 Rotherham Local Plan, [name] 2013-2028, adopted September 2014.

The proposal introduces additional windows in the gable elevations at first floor and above, whereas the 2024 approved scheme had fewer windows. They would also look down on the adjacent neighbouring buildings, gardens and spaces to the east and west, leading to a harmful loss of privacy.

Whilst some would serve main habitable spaces such as bedrooms, they would all be secondary to the main windows in the front and rear elevations. A planning condition requiring those windows to be obscure glazed and non-opening would therefore prevent overlooking and would not lead to knock-on implications for the quality of the living spaces within the development.

Taking the above into account, I conclude that varying the condition in the manner proposed would not result in development that would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to privacy, subject to the additional condition requirement I have outlined. Accordingly, this element of the development would comply with the relevant provisions of Policy SP12 of the Sites and Policies document4. The policy requires harm to be prevented to the amenity of existing properties, including by overlooking.

I have not found harm in respect of living conditions. However, I have found that this does not outweigh the significant harm in respect of the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, particularly the CA.

In this case, I find that the development would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.