Double storey side extension and front porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 June 2019 by R Cooper BSc (Hons) MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1st July 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/P4415/D/19/3228300 111 Broom Valley Road, Broom Valley, Rotherham S60 2QX • 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 & Mrs Qadir against the decision of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref RB2019/0258, dated 15 February 2019, was refused by notice dated 10 April 2019. • The development proposed is a double storey side extension and front porch. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the side extension on the character and appearance of the area, with specific regard to its scale and position. Reasons 3. The appeal site is a semi-detached dwelling, set in a large corner plot, at the junction of Broom Valley Road and Norrels Drive. The existing garden space around the dwelling provides a sense of openness to the area. 4. The proposal would result in a large, two storey extension to the side of the property. Due to the extensions relative scale and exposure, it would appear as a dominant, overbearing feature in the street scene, enclosing the entrance to Norrels Drive, and reducing the sense of openness. 5. I am aware of a previous appeal for a two storey side extension at the appeal site which was dismissed in November 2018 (APP/P4415/D/18/3211885). Having visited the site, I also noted that the property on the opposite corner of Norrels Drive is built very close to the boundary. I agree with the previous findings, in that positioning a two storey extension close to the boundary, opposite the other corner would emphasise its dominant appearance in the street scene. 6. I acknowledge that the width of the proposed extension would leave a gap between the gable and the boundary fence, reflecting the property on the opposite corner. However, this would not mitigate the harm caused by the overbearing appearance of the extension, and its overall impact on the street scene. Appeal Decision APP/P4415/D/19/3228300 2 7. The proposed extension would have a lower ridge height than the existing roof, and the first floor would be set back from the front elevation of the host dwelling, appearing subordinate. I also note that it would be constructed in facing brick and roof tiles to match the existing dwelling. I consider the general design of the extension to respect the appearance of the existing dwelling. However, this does not overcome my concerns in relation to its overbearing appearance in the street scene. 8. I note that the area has a variety of house types, and that there are existing examples of two storey side extensions along Broom Valley Road. However, I am not aware of the circumstances in each of those cases, and in any event, I must consider the appeal scheme on its own merits. The existence of these other extensions does not justify the harm I have identified. 9. For these reasons the proposed extension does not integrate well into the character and appearance of the area. The proposals do not accord with Policy SP55 of the Sites and Policies document of the Rotherham Local Plan 2018, which seeks high quality design that positively contributes to the character of the area. 10. Furthermore, the proposal conflicts with the Council’s Householder Design Guide 2014, which seeks to restrict the width extensions on corner plots, and to include space around them. The guidance therefore offers no support for the proposal. Other Matters 11. The appellant has referred to a draft approval notice published on the Council’s website prior to the refusal being issued. I am not aware of the full circumstances of this, in any case it does not alter my findings. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. R Cooper Inspector