Side extension and loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 September 2020 by Diane Cragg DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 05 October 2020 Appeal Ref: APP/J4423/D/20/3254978 9 Hollow Gate, Sheffield S35 1TZ • 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 Simon Grady against the decision of Sheffield City Council. • The application Ref 20/01244/FUL, dated 13 April 2020, was refused by notice dated 16 June 2020. • The development proposed is side extension and loft conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for side extension and loft conversion at 9 Hollow Gate, Sheffield S35 1TZ in accordance with the terms of the application ref 20/01244/FUL dated 13 April 2020 subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: drawing numbers 50, 04, 05 and 09 3) No development above damp-proof course level shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Procedural Matter 2. My attention has been drawn to a previous appeal decision at the site for an extension which was dismissed1. I have taken this appeal decision into account. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. Reasons 4. From its junction with Hallwood Road the character of Hollow Gate on its western side is of individually designed stone-built properties, which have had various extensions and alterations, constructed behind stone walls. Properties 1 APP/J4423/D/19/3236947 Appeal Decision APP/J4423/D/20/3254978 2 are located close to the road frontage although there is no consistent building line. The stone dwellings and boundary walls, the variety of design and the various positioning of buildings in relation to the road frontage contributes to the area’s character and appearance. 5. The appeal property is a modest semi-detached stone constructed house with a large side garden area. The side garden is enclosed by a high fence behind a low stone wall to the front boundary. 6. The proposed side extension would project forward of the existing property but would be set back from the front boundary. Taken together with the materials of construction and the simple roof form with parapet detail, the extension would sit comfortably in the street scene and with the character and appearance of the existing property. 7. I appreciate that the extension would be of a significant width when compared to the original building. However, even though it would be set forward of the existing front elevation, the width of the extension taken together with its scale would not detract from the host property or appear dominant in the street scene. 8. I note that the Council do not object to the rear dormer window and following my site visit I see no reason to disagree. 9. Consequently, I consider that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the host property or the area. The proposal, therefore, would not conflict with Policy H14 of the Unitary Development Plan which seeks to ensure that new extensions are well designed and in scale and character with neighbouring buildings. It would also comply with guidelines 1, 2 and 3 of the Sheffield City Council Supplementary Planning Guidance Designing House Extensions which seeks to ensure that development is compatible with the character and built form of the area. Conditions 10. In addition to the standard timescale condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty of the development for which permission is granted. I have also imposed a condition relating to materials in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Diane Cragg INSPECTOR