Appeal 6003256

The appeal is dismissed.

I have considered the proposed development on the basis of the following description shown on the Council’s Notice of Decision and the Appeal Form as it provides a more accurate description: ‘Remodelling of property including raising the ridge height to create rooms in the roofspace, two storey front extension and two storey rear extension with balconies to rear.’

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to outlook and privacy.

The surrounding area is characterised by a variety of detached dwellings including traditional and modern designs, three and two storey houses and bungalows. Dwellings are generally set back from the road frontage. There are examples of modern glazed frontage designs and of three storey dwellings adjacent to bungalows. [address] is on a hill so there are differing ground levels between properties. Bungalows in the streetscene are generally situated at a higher ground level when adjacent to three storey properties. Consequently, the roofscape along [address] undulates gently between properties despite the mixture of bungalows and two and three storey dwellings, due to the topography.

The appeal property (No 170A) is a detached, one and a half storey dwelling, set back from the road frontage. It shares vehicular access and a paved frontage with No. [address] (No. 170). The pair of properties are very close to each other and of a traditional design in red brick with tiled roof. Three small dormer windows in each contribute to their smaller scale. The frontage of No. 170 appears to be practically identical in scale, height and design to the appeal property and it is situated at a similar ground level. The properties are highly visible within the street scene as a pair and their consistent design and close relationship contributes positively to the visual qualities of the locality. A bungalow (No. 172) is adjacent to the appeal property, at a lower ground level.

The development would not increase the footprint of No 170A but it would increase the eaves and ridge heights of the appeal property and would significantly transform its appearance, particularly in terms of the fenestration pattern. The host dwelling would be subsumed by the appeal proposal and would no longer be visually legible. The proposal would not create a subservient addition to the property and thus it would be at odds with the [name] Planning Document (2025) (SPD). The proposed increase in height and radical change in appearance would spoil the pleasing symmetry and close visual relationship of Nos.170 and 170A that currently contributes positively to the streetscene.

Also, the proposal would increase the difference in roof heights between No 170A and the adjacent bungalow at No.172 . This combined with the larger scale of design means the development would appear incongruous in the immediate street scene.

The modern design of the three storey appeal proposal would reflect that of some of the other properties within [address]. I also note the other properties in the area that have been extended and altered as referred to by the appellant. However, none of these are set within a similar context to the appeal proposal so as to set an irresistible precedent or to justify the unsympathetic appearance of the development compared to the adjacent property.

Thus, the appeal proposal would not respond positively to the scale and form of surrounding development within its immediate context. It would therefore harm the identified character and appearance of the area contrary to Policy CS28 of the Rotherham Local Plan ([name]) (2014) (CS) and Policy SP55 of the Rotherham Local Plan (Sites & Policies) (2018) (LP).

On site I observed that to the rear of the appeal property there is an area of lawn, presently with no boundary fencing between Nos. 170 and 170A. The issue of privacy is considered on the basis that fencing could be introduced on the boundary between Nos. 170 and 170A without requiring planning permission.

The host property has two rear bedroom windows at second floor level. I observed from each window that there is already a degree of overlooking to both neighbouring gardens. The proposal would increase the height of the appeal property and introduce larger glazed areas with balconies, that may increase the perception of being overlooked for the occupiers of both neighbouring properties. Overall, however, I find that any effect on their privacy would not be to a harmful extent, given the existing level of overlooking, use of one room as a bathroom with obscure glazing, and solid walls to the side of the balconies.

The adjacent bungalow (No.172) has a rear elevation window that appears to be a main habitable room close to the boundary with No. 170A. The garden is south facing and so the appeal proposal would not cause direct overshadowing. However, due to the difference in levels, the existing outlook from this window is already compromised to an extent by the proximity to the gable end of the appeal property. Notwithstanding the staggered arrangement between the properties, increasing the height of the appeal property would further diminish the outlook to an unacceptable level, resulting in an undue sense of overbearing for the occupiers of No. 172.

Consequently, the appeal proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 172 with regard to outlook and would conflict with Policy CS28 of the CS and Policy SP55 of the LP.

Support for the proposal is acknowledged. However, this does not overcome the identified harm that would be caused by the appeal development.

Other representations have been made regarding the effect of the appeal proposal on properties at [address]. The separation distances are such that it is not considered the appeal proposal would have an unacceptable effect on their privacy or outlook.

The appellant cites other benefits associated with the appeal proposal including the employment of local contractors, additional living space and enhanced performance and longevity of the dwelling. These purported benefits collectively attract limited weight given the scale of the development and so they do not overcome the identified harm.

I have had regard to the use of conditions. However, I find that there are no reasonable conditions that could be imposed to overcome the identified harm that would be caused by the proposal.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.