Appeal 6005038

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal property is one half of a pair of semi-detached dwellings situated in a residential area near to the junction between [address] and [address]. The dwelling features front and rear gable elevations which project beyond those of its adjoining neighbour at [address]. No. 38 features a hipped roof, a design repeated across nearly all the semi-detached dwellings which dominate the surrounding area. The absence of side dormers is another defining characteristic of these properties, including those nearby that incorporate pitched roofs.

[address] rises uphill to the south and west. Consequently, [address] is at a raised level relative to the rear of Nos. 34 to [address]. This topography enables unobstructed views of the rear roof slopes of these properties from the highway of [address].

The proposed development is a loft conversion comprising two flat roof dormers alongside three rooflights. The loft conversion would provide accommodation in the form of an office, bedroom and en-suite at the second storey level. The dormers would be positioned on the rear half of the roof with one situated on the northern roof slope behind the roof-ridge shared with No.38. The other dormer would be situated on the southern roof slope facing towards the side elevation of [address].

Guidelines 1 and 2 of the [address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance (the SPG) state that extensions should be compatible with the character and built form of the area and should not detract from the host dwelling or the general appearance of the street or locality. Whilst the proposed dormers would use matching materials and be set down from the roof ridge and set-in from the edges of the roof, they would not sit comfortably upon the pitched roof of the appeal property. The shape and form of the dormers would add significant mass to the existing roof and give rise to a bulky appearance, particularly when experienced from [address]. Likewise, the flat roofs would not conform with the pitched style of the existing roof and would not read as a subordinate or proportionate addition, thereby detracting from the appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area.

As the appeal property is distinguished from its adjoining neighbour and the surrounding area by the prominent projection of its gable ends, the new roof shape created by the dormers would be unduly dominant and would not be compatible with the design of the appeal property or the surrounding streetscene. This impact would be exacerbated by the absence of side dormers in the immediate locality. Nevertheless, I do note that several properties on [address] have been subject to hip-to-gable extensions. However, this type of extension is fundamentally different to that proposed at the appeal property and would not be feasible given the orientation of the appeal property’s pitched, not hipped, roof.

The appellant cites that the proposal would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework in respect of the efficient use of residential land and would be a sustainable development in a residential area. It is also contended that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its effects on the living conditions of neighbours. I have taken these arguments into account but they do not justify the harm I have identified above in respect of the proposal’s poor quality design and discordant appearance. Furthermore, the appellant has indicated that there are several examples of similar loft conversions with dormer additions within the immediate locality. No specific examples have been put to me and, as previously indicated, I did not observe there to be any side dormers on roof slopes nearby.

For the reasons set out above, the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. Consequently, the development conflicts with Policy CS74 of the [name] (2009) and with Policy BE5 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (1998) which, together, seek high quality development that enhances the distinctive features of the city’s neighbourhoods, is in scale and character with neighbouring buildings with all extensions respecting the scale, form, details and materials of the original building.

The development conflicts 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 dismissed.