Appeal 6003231

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council considers that the proposed part 2-storey, part single storey rear extension would not give rise to any significantly harmful impacts on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Also, that the proposed 2-storey side extension would not result in any harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. I agree with these findings and therefore the main issues apply to the relevant elements of the proposal, as stated below.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed 2-storey side extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; and • The effect of the proposed part 2-storey, part single storey rear extension on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at 79 [site address] (No 79), with regard to outlook and light.

The appeal property is a 2-storey detached dwelling featuring a double height front bay window, original semi-circular entrance canopy and a hipped roof. The neighbouring properties on either side are also detached and share the same original form, albeit with minor variations to windows and external finishes. Owing to the steep gradient of the road, these dwellings step progressively in height.

Further along the street, on [address], the pattern shifts to semi-detached dwellings that repeat the characteristic hipped roofs, double height bays and entrance canopies. Although some have been extended, there is generally a gap between the 2-storey flank walls of each dwelling, at least at first floor level. The spaces between the houses are a key, positive characteristic of the area which provides a sense of space.

The proposal includes a 2-storey side extension with hipped roof over. The extension would occupy almost the full width of the space to the side, leaving only a narrow gap to the common boundary with 83 [site address] (No 83). Furthermore, the extension would only be slightly set back from the existing frontage of the dwelling and would not be set down from the existing roofline. While the small separation from No 83 would be visible when stood directly in front of the dwelling, when viewed from the majority of [site address] it would not be evident, despite the differing ground levels, particularly given the tapered alignment of both the common boundary and proposed extension side wall.

The Council’s ‘[address] Extensions’ Supplementary Planning Guidance (undated) (the SPG) states that extensions should be compatible with the character and built form of the area. Furthermore, they should not detract from the dwelling or general appearance of the street or locality.

The proposed side extension would result in a terracing effect due to the small gap to the side boundary, minimal set back and lack of set down to the roof. The development would not therefore be in keeping with the pattern of development and spacing between dwellings, which would erode the sense of space. As a result, the extension would fail to respect or enhance the character of the host dwelling or townscape.

The appellant asserts that the different layout and appearance of the corner property at 85 [site address] , and the single storey side extension at No 83, demonstrates that the street scene is not uniform and that extensions are an established feature of the area. However, despite some differences in design, scale and some neighbouring additions, the sense of separation between properties has been retained, and this is a defining characteristic of the locality.

For the above reasons, the proposed 2-storey side extension would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Consequently, it would conflict with Policy CS74 of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy (March 2009) (the [name]) and Policy BE5 and H14 of the Saved Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (March 1998) (the UDP). Together, these seek to ensure that new development is well designed, does not result in over-development and respects and enhances the original building and character of the area, with their associated scale, layout and built form, building styles and materials. I have also had due regard to the SPG, which adds to my conclusions in this respect.

The proposal includes a part 2-storey, part single storey extension to the rear of the dwelling, spanning the full width of the plot. The 2-storey element of the extension would be built to the common boundary with No 79, which is situated at a significantly lower level, and contains ground and first floor rear windows and with private amenity space sited alongside.

The SPG advises that the unreasonable overshadowing and over dominance of neighbouring dwellings should be avoided. Owing to the extension’s proximity to the common boundary with No 79, its height in the context of the lower ground level at No 79 and its projection relative to the orientation of the sun, the proposed rear extension would appear unduly dominant and would materially harm outlook and light for the occupiers of No 79.

Consequently, I find that the proposed development would have a harmful impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No 79 with particular regard to outlook and light. I do not find any particular conflict with Policy CS74 of the [name] or Policy BE5 of the UDP, as these appear to relate solely to matters of design. However, the proposed development would conflict with Policy H14 of the UDP which states, amongst other things, that new development will be permitted provided that it would not deprive residents of light. Again, I have had due regard to the SPG, which adds to my conclusions on this matter.

While the appellant has stated that they are willing to revise the scheme, I must determine the proposal as shown on the drawings before me. Therefore, this does not lead me to an alternative conclusion.

The appellant has criticised the response of the Council following their discussions relating to potential future proposals. However, my decision must be based on the current proposal and the evidence before me.

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.