Appeal 6007089

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for development described as “the erection of two-storey front extension to dwellinghouse” at [site address] , Sheffield [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/00140/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: 2 storey front extension, h/25/02.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. In addition, the above description is from the decision notice. That on the application form refers to a single storey extension. My use of it does not alter any fundamental aspect of the proposal, nor does it prejudice the ability of the main parties to present their respective cases in regard thereto. The main issues in which are the effect of the proposed development on a) the character and appearance of the area; and b) the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address] (No. 19) with specific regard to light and outlook.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling located in a residential cul-de-sac. Surrounding properties are a varied but coherent mix of detached and semi-detached dwellings. While a number of dwellings are arranged in semi‐detached pairs, many do not exhibit a strictly symmetrical composition, with differing projecting elements and varied front elevations. Several nearby dwellings have also been altered over time, including the addition of front and side extensions, which collectively contribute to a mixed established character.

The front extension would introduce a narrow, proportionate two‐storey gabled projection. Although it would increase the massing of the dwelling, it would not project beyond the existing single‐storey front element. Along this part of the close there is already a discernible variation in building lines, resulting in a staggered street scene. In that context, a modest two‐storey gable, finished in matching brick and reflective of similar forward‐facing gables found on nearby properties, would sit comfortably within the established pattern of development.

While the appeal property forms one half of a semi‐detached pair, the proposal would not appear visually dominant or discordant, nor would it undermine the legibility of the pair. The extension would therefore preserve the overall rhythm, cohesion and reasonable visual balance of the street scene. Any similar proposals elsewhere would have to be considered on their own merits and their own context.

Consequently, the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area and thus comply with Policy CS74 of the Sheffield Development Framework, [name], 2009 (CS), Policies H14 and BE5 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan, 1998 (UDP) and guidance contained in the Supplementary Planning Guidance on [address] Extensions (SPG). Amongst other things, these require development to be of high-quality that respects the character of its neighbourhood.

No. 19 is on a slightly lower ground level and set back from the appeal property. It contains a first-floor bedroom window closest to the proposed extension. Consequently, the proposal would slightly impinge the 45-degree guidance set out in the SPG. The SPG is guidance only and no such rule is set out in the development plan policies provided. Given the separation distances between both dwellings, together with their south facing orientation, the proposed extension would have only a marginal effect on the amount of morning light that would reach the bedroom. It would, therefore, not cause the room to be noticeably darker. Furthermore, the proposal would not significantly alter the outlook therefrom, which would remain broadly open across the cul-de-sac.

As such, the works would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 19. Consequently, they would accord with Policy H14 of the UDP, which amongst other things, seeks to ensure proposals do not deprive residents of light, privacy or security. Policy CS74 of the CS and Policy BE5 of the UDP are principally concerned with design quality and do not address matters of residential amenity.

In addition to the standard time period for commencement of the development, I have set out a condition requiring the development to accord with the approved plans for enforcement purposes. A condition requiring the use of materials matching that of the existing building is also necessary to ensure an appropriate appearance for the development.

The appeal scheme would comply with the development plan for the reasons I have set out and there is nothing to suggest a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted, subject to the conditions set out above.