Appeal 6005333

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs has been made by the appellant against the Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development firstly, on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the local area; and secondly, on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with regard to outlook.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling that occupies a prominent corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address] within a predominantly residential area that contains a mix of dwelling sizes, types and plot shapes. Due to the notable difference in local ground levels, the site is at an appreciably higher level than [address] and the property just beyond the side and rear of the site, which is No 45.

Planning permission is sought for a single-storey side and rear extension with a flat split-level roof for use as a garage. It would be larger than the existing single storey side extension and garage that are to be demolished and removed to make way for the new addition.

The proposal follows a recent decision at appeal to grant a lawful development certificate (LDC) for a detached outbuilding on the site. The LDC scheme establishes that a building with a similar footprint and siting to the proposal could lawfully be erected without planning permission. It is a realistic fallback position against which the proposal before me should be assessed.

According to the appellant, the appeal scheme would rationalise the existing piecemeal arrangement of built additions and create a more coherent overall built form using external materials to match those of the main dwelling. It would replace an area currently occupied by buildings or hardstanding and would not encroach into an undeveloped area of the site.

However, the proposal would be a sizeable addition. Although single storey, the new extension would be much deeper and almost twice the width of the 2-storey house. Unlike the existing property, the completed house would extend across almost the entire wide frontage to [address].

In views from [address], the proposal would be seen against the backdrop of the existing 2-storey dwelling and rising land. In that context, it would not appear as an isolated structure. Nevertheless, the appeal scheme would occupy a substantial proportion of the relatively open highway frontage of the plot. That the flat roof of the new extension would create a long horizontal emphasis to the finished building would accentuate its considerable scale and bulk. [address] and the footways just in front of the site, the new extension would draw the eye as an overly large and bulky ‘box-like’ addition that would relate poorly to the modest proportions, scale and intrinsic character of the main 2-storey dwelling and neighbouring buildings. This arrangement would markedly contrast with the smaller side extension and garage set back into the site that are both to be removed.

The proposal would also be noticeably taller and more substantial in-built form compared to the LDC scheme. Unlike the new extension, the LDC outbuilding would also remain physically and visually separate from the main 2-storey house. The gap between the host dwelling and the LDC outbuilding, while narrow, would preserve the legibility of the main 2-storey house as the predominant element on the plot. By contrast, the proposal would combine the existing dwelling and the proposed extension into a single entity. In public views from [address] the proposal would visually ‘read’ as an overly large lateral expansion of the dwelling itself rather than as a detached structure associated with it. That distinction would significantly alter the perceived scale and proportions of the host dwelling in a way that a detached outbuilding under the fallback option would not.

The physical attachment of a substantial new built form to the main dwelling would change how the new extension would be perceived within the street scene and in relation to the original house. It is that altered visual relationship, rather than footprint or height alone, that leads me to conclude that the proposal would cause significantly greater harm to the host building and the area than the LDC scheme.

The appellant argues that the pair of semi-detached dwellings at Nos 116 and 118 are not experienced as a rigidly symmetrical pair because of differences in levels, plot configuration and the corner position of No 116. Nonetheless, the 2-storey elevations of these dwellings retain a clear visual association through their shared scale, proportions, roof form and their relationship when seen along [address]. It is that shared visual identity, rather than strict symmetry, that currently characterises the pair. The proposed extension would substantially widen the mass of No 116 at ground-floor level and would introduce a significant continuous built form running laterally across the site’s frontage. In doing so, it would shift the visual centre of gravity of the pair towards the corner site and weaken the sense of balance and association between the two dwellings. That harm would be apparent notwithstanding the existing differences between the existing properties and would be less evident from the detached fallback scheme, where the outbuilding would remain visually and physically separate from the main dwelling.

On the first main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the local area. It therefore conflicts with Policy CS 74 of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy, Policies BE5 and H14 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and Guideline 2 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on [address] Extensions (SPG).

Taken together, these policies and guidance promote high quality development that is well designed and extensions that respect the scale and form of, and do not detract from, the dwelling or the general appearance of the street scene. The proposal would also be at odds with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which states that development should be sympathetic to local character and add to the overall quality of an area.

No 45 occupies a notably lower level than the site and part of the proposed extension would be visible from its small rear garden, which is largely enclosed by a substantial retaining wall and the existing garage of No 116. Views from within this adjacent property towards the proposal would be limited to a single roof light through which the outlook is likely to be mostly skyward and therefore unaffected.

The appellant has submitted comparative drawings showing the relationship between the proposal and the LDC outbuilding along the shared boundary between the site and No 45. At the point where either scheme would influence the outlook experienced from No 45, the proposed and lawful structures would be broadly comparable in height and position. Although the proposal would include a taller element towards the front, the practical effect on the outlook from the rear of No 45 would be similar to that arising from the fallback position. Having considered the relationship between Nos 116 and the rear of 45, I find that the proposal would not significantly worsen the outlook from the rear of this adjacent property if the existing garage were to remain in place or if the LDC scheme were to come forward.

The appellant has placed some reliance on the Council's earlier decision to approve the change of use of No 45 from a workshop to a dwelling. In accepting that change, the appellant argues that the Council necessarily accepted that the existing enclosed relationship with No 116 provided adequate living conditions for future occupiers, and that the marginal additional enclosure arising from the proposal should therefore also be acceptable. However, the change of use decision addressed the acceptability of the relationship between the properties as it stood at that time. It did not assess, and cannot be taken as endorsing, the effect of additional built form subsequently attached to No 116. In any event, I have found that the practical effect of the proposal on the outlook from No 45 would be similar to that of the lawful fallback development. The acceptability of the proposal on living conditions therefore largely rests on that comparative assessment, not on any precedent established by the previous change of use decision.

On the second main issue, I conclude that the proposal would not materially reduce the living conditions of the occupiers of No 45. Accordingly, I find no conflict with UDP Policy H14, Guideline 5 of the Council’s SPG or the Framework insofar as they seek to safeguard residential amenity. My favourable finding on this issue does not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified in relation to character and appearance.

I have considered all other matters raised, including the lawful fallback position, the absence of neighbour objections, the retention of off-street parking and the accessible location of the site within the main built-up area.

I also recognise that the proposal would rationalise the existing arrangement of structures on the site and that a substantial detached outbuilding could lawfully be erected under the fallback position. Nevertheless, the determinative issue is the materially different relationship created by physically attaching a substantial extension to the host dwelling. That relationship would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of both the host dwelling and the local area.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the fallback position and the provisions of the Framework, which indicate the appeal should be determined otherwise. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.