Loft conversion with hip to gable change and rear dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 May 2018 by W Johnson BA (Hons) DipTP DipUDR MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/J4423/D/18/3195270 109 Hemper Lane, Sheffield S8 7FB  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Matt Wilson against the decision of Sheffield City Council.  The application Ref 17/02965/FUL, dated 10 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 21 December 2017.  The development proposed is a loft conversion with hip to gable change and rear dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a detached house on Hemper Lane, which is a long linear road. The host dwelling is of brick and render construction with a tiled hipped roof. The proposal seeks alterations to the roof, through the introduction of 2 gable ends and a dormer extension on the rear roof slope. 4. The host dwelling forms part of a small group of detached houses that are similar in design and on the same side of the road as the host dwelling. The wider street scene consists of a mixture of house types, where hipped roofs are a predominant feature that are clearly visible when viewed from the front. This forms a strong and positive characteristic in the street scene, meaning I consider that the appeal site is located within a row of similar properties that have maintained a sense of rhythm and balance and are then supported by other hipped roof dwellings on the same side of the road. 5. The proposal through its design and form, with particular regard to the 2 gable ends and the more shallow front facing roof slope would result in an incongruous addition that would dominate the roof, fundamentally altering its shape and unbalancing its form and relationship with the adjacent dwellings. The resulting significant adverse effect on the host property would be readily visible in the street scene to the detriment of character and appearance of the surrounding area. I note the Council’s comments in relation to the rear dormer Appeal Decision APP/J4423/D/18/3195270 2 and how it is not particularly visible from the street, and I agree with the Council in this regard. 6. Whilst I note the appellant’s comments in relation to the facing materials and how they will be in keeping with the host property, this would not provide sufficient mitigation to outweigh the harm otherwise arising. In his representations the appellant has made reference to works allowed under permitted development. However, no additional details have been provided, and without this detailed information a comparison between this alternative scheme and the case before me cannot be drawn. Additionally, as there is little to indicate a reasonable prospect of such development taking place, little weight can be given to this matter. I have considered this appeal proposal on its own merits and concluded that it would cause harm for the reasons set out above. 7. For all of these reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area. This would be contrary to Policy BE5 and H14 of The Sheffield Unitary Development Plan, which amongst other things seeks for extensions to respect the scale, form, detail and architectural style of the original and surrounding buildings. It would be contrary to The Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy Policy CS74 that seeks amongst things high quality development, which would respect, take advantage of and enhance the distinctive features of the city, its districts and neighbourhoods. 8. It also fails to accord with guidelines 1 and 2 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Designing House Extensions, which amongst other things say that extensions should be compatible with the character and built form of the area, and that extensions to dwellings should not detract from that dwelling or the general appearance of the street or locality. As a result, the proposal would also be contrary to paragraph 60 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which amongst other things seeks to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness. Other matters 9. I have had regard to matters raised by a neighbouring occupier to the rear of the appeal site, who has raised concerns with regards to loss of privacy from the rear dormer. However, I note the Council’s comments, insofar it does not consider that the living conditions of any neighbouring residents would be severely impacted upon, and I agree with the Council in this regard. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. Wayne Johnson INSPECTOR