Appeal 6003602

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (i) the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] in terms of light and outlook; and (ii) the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The proposed first floor extension would be in close proximity to the neighbouring property of [address] (No 315) and given its scale, it would appear as a vast amount of built development when viewed from the windows of No 315 and the external garden areas. The extension therefore would have an adverse effect on the outlook of the occupiers of No 315 from both within the property and the garden areas.

Due to the positioning and size of the first floor extension, as well as the orientation of the properties, the extension would be overbearing and result in the loss of light to the property and garden areas of No 315. The extension would have overshadowing effects on No 315 that would be to the detriment of its occupants. I note that No 315 has a front garden which may not be adversely affected by the proposal however, this area faces directly onto the busy main road and is not a private area for the occupiers of the property.

The proposed first floor extension would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 315 in terms of light and outlook. The proposed development would be contrary to Policy H14 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (SUDP) which seeks new development to not be over-developed or deprive residents of light.

The proposal would not result in the loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers, however, this matter would not outweigh the harm I have identified above.

The area surrounding the appeal site is characterised by a mix of residential and commercial properties with varying built forms and designs. Whilst the appeal property was likely a former residential property, it is clearly a commercial property now with various additions to the building. It is the mixed form and styles of the buildings which contribute to the character of the area.

The proposed first floor extension would be suitably designed with it being set down from the main roof line and set back from the main front building line of the property. It would appear as a subservient structure that would not dominate the existing property or surrounding street scene, and it would not appear out of keeping with the built development in the near locality.

The proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal would comply with Policies H14(a) and BE5 of the SUDP and Policy CS74 of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy which seeks development to be of high quality, be in scale and character with neighbouring buildings and complement architectural style of surrounding buildings.

I have had regard to the appellants statement of case as well as the attached appendices which include documents relating to [name] and [name], [name] and [name], [name] and [name] and [name]. The appellant argues that the proposal would increase the number of dental surgeries at the appeal site from three to four, representing a 33% increase in available clinical accommodation. The appellant concludes that the proposal would support the effective delivery and potential expansion of an existing 18,360 Units of [name] contract, ensuring that a significant volume of NHS dental care can be delivered in an area of high need.

A large amount of information and statistical data has been submitted in relation to dental provision. However, there is a lack of substantive analysis of this evidence, in particular in terms of relevance to the appeal site and the catchment area of the dental practice at the site. It is not clear whether there is a specific unmet need for dental provision in the area surrounding the appeal site and it is also unclear whether the proposed development would meet any current lack of dental provision. [name] accept that increasing dental clinical accommodation can be a public benefit, there is no compelling evidence before me which convinces me that the proposal would meet a specific need in this location. On this basis, I do not consider the proposal provides a public benefit that would outweigh the harm I have found in relation to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 315.

I have found that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. However, this matter would not outweigh the harm I have identified regarding the effect on the living conditions of occupiers of property No 315.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, which outweighs this finding.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.