Appeal 6003214

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of an outbuilding and retaining walls at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03030/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: A (PL)-001 [name]; A (PL)-002 [name].

The outbuilding hereby permitted shall be constructed in external materials previously submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area.

[site address] , a former public house, is a two-storey dwelling set into the hill on the northern side of [address]. The dwelling is positioned at the back of a large plot where it is set down and partially screened by substantial retaining walls to the southern and western boundaries. The elevations of the dwelling are finished in white render with stone detailing alongside a dual-pitched roof composed of grey tiles. The surrounding residential area is a tight-knit mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings with rear yards formed from large stone walls that account for the steep topography of the area. In some cases, these walls are crowned by timber fencing or soft planting. A flat roof outbuilding is situated to the southeast of the site on the same street.

The proposed development is for an outbuilding to be erected between the host dwelling and [address], in the southwest corner of the plot. A retaining wall is proposed at the rear and side of the outbuilding, and a fence is proposed behind the stone wall fronting the street.

I have visited the appeal site and assessed it from several vantage points along [address] and [address]. The main views of the appeal site are those from the southern end of [address] looking northwest, where the dwelling’s character and its contribution to the streetscape are most apparent. From this position, the proposed development would sit to the left of the dwelling and would not obscure it, while its material finish would complement the attractive contribution made by the existing dwelling and its stone boundaries. Views of the dwelling from [address] would also remain largely unchanged, as the gables of the dwelling and outbuilding would not interfere or obscure one another when viewed from the north. The western retaining wall also restricts views of the appeal site from this direction, further minimising its visual impact.

The outbuilding would be considered large if located elsewhere on the street, where limited space and a dense built form constrain development. However, in the context of the substantially larger plot and dwelling to which it relates, its size and scale would appear proportionate and not excessive. Moreover, the outbuilding would mostly be tucked-in behind large stone walls. Therefore it would be at a substantially lower level than the street where it would appear subservient and would not appear prominent. Consequently, given the lower land level, I consider the proposed siting of the outbuilding to be appropriate. As such, it is unnecessary to consider whether the visibility of the outbuilding would be diminished were it positioned elsewhere in the plot.

The proposal’s roof would protrude above the stone wall forming the southern boundary. Nonetheless, this effect would not be harmful as the roof pitches steeply away from the boundary. The proposed fence would further screen the outbuilding and much of its roof from view and is an appropriate treatment considering the prevalence of similar fences above stone walls nearby.

I acknowledge that the outbuilding and fence may disrupt the view of the dwelling from the footway immediately next to the outbuilding. However, such views would only be interrupted for a limited distance and from a position within the street where the dwelling and outbuilding would not draw the eye.

I appreciate there are few outbuildings nearby, but it does not necessarily follow that their presence will inevitably be harmful. For the reasons already outlined, the proposal would be sympathetically assimilated into the larger plot and topography of the appeal site.

I note that Guidelines 1-3 of the [address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) have been referred to by the Council. The guidelines within the SPG expressly relate to extension rather than outbuildings, and do not offer any specific guidance in relation to detached outbuildings. As such, and given that the SPG is for guidance only, I have afforded limited weight to it in reaching my decision. Reference has also been made to a previous planning application that was refused by the Council for a similar development. The specific details of this case are not before me, and I have based my assessment on the plans and evidence submitted for the purpose of this appeal.

For the reasons set out above, the proposed development would not have a negative effect on the character and appearance of the appeal property or the surrounding area. Consequently, the development is not in conflict with Policy CS74 of the [name] (2009) or with Policies BE5 and H14 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (1998). Together, these policies seek high quality development that enhances the distinctive features of the city’s neighbourhoods, is in scale and character with neighbouring buildings and which expects good design and the use of high quality materials.

I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council against paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance.

In the interests of certainty and clarity, I have imposed the conditions relating to the commencement of development as well as specifying the approved plans. Proposed materials are not referred to in the application form or on the proposed plans. In the absence of this information, it is necessary to impose a condition to ensure agreement of the external finish of the materials, including details of the stone shown on the front elevation.

I have not imposed a condition restricting the use or subsequent change of use of the outbuilding to a dwelling. The facilities therein do not include essential living facilities, such as a kitchen or bathroom, and it would also share the same access from the highway as the main dwelling. Furthermore, the development description states that permission would be granted for an outbuilding and not any other form of development. For these reasons the condition is not necessary.

The development does not conflict with the development plan as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed subject to conditions.