Erection of a single-storey front/side extension and loft conversion with partial extension of the ridge height over dormer

Appeal Decision by P Hatch BA (Hons) Ad. Dip MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002270 19 Worcester Drive, Sheffield, S10 4JG • 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 A. Nazarov against the decision of Sheffield City Council. • The application Ref is 25/02487/FUL (formerly PP-14268016). • The development proposed is the erection of a single-storey front/side extension and loft conversion with partial extension of the ridge height over dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development used in the banner header above is taken from the planning application form. Whilst this is not factually incorrect, it does not clearly describe all the elements proposed as part of this appeal. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the following description, attached to the Council’s decision notice, which accurately describes the proposal as the ‘erection of a single-storey front / side extension and rear dormer extension with Juliette balcony to dwellinghouse’. 3. The Council do not raise any concerns with the single storey front / side extension therefore the focus of this appeal is the rear dormer extension with Juliette balcony. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 5. The appeal property forms one half of a pair of two-storey semi-detached houses. This is typical of properties on Worcester Drive which include a broad mix of single storey and two-storey detached and semi-detached properties. The roofscape of the street is also varied with the pitch of roofs running both parallel and perpendicular to the street. However, the ridgeline of roofs is consistent and level with no readily discernible changes when observed from the street. This creates a uniformity and rhythm to the rooflines which is particularly evident due to a change in levels, creating a noticeable staggering effect of properties when viewed from the street. 6. The proposed development involves the installation of a dormer to the rear elevation of the appeal property. Whilst the dormer would be recessed below the existing ridgeline of the property, the proposal would nonetheless require the ridge Appeal Decision 6002270 2 of the roof to be raised in its central portion for the dormer to meet the necessary building regulations in relation to living space. The raising of only the central portion of the ridge line would create a stepped effect at both ends. The semi-detached nature of the property would result in only a partial raising of the roof’s ridgeline to the appeal property itself, leaving the other side of the semi-detached pair at its original roof height. 7. The inclusion of a dormer into the rear elevation of the property would not be discordant with the wider character of the area. However, the introduction of a staggered ridge line on a pair of semi-detached houses, despite its stepped appearance, would appear incongruous when viewed from the street and would not be sympathetic to the wider character of the area. The uniform nature of ridgelines and the changing levels on Worcester Drive, which make the detail of roofs more prominent when viewed from the street, would only exacerbate this visually adverse effect, both for the properties themselves but also the wider character and appearance of the area. I also note that Guideline 2 of the Council’s SPD on Designing House Extensions indicate that dormers should not rise above the existing ridgeline of the roof, this proposal is not consistent with that approach. 8. The appellant has drawn my attention to other examples of development within the surrounding area which they feel set a precedent for their proposal. I noted 18 Worcester Drive which as a detached property had a varied roofscape including dormers to the front but did not include any stepped change to its ridge height. I also took the opportunity to view properties on Barncliffe Crescent which is some distance away from the appeal site. Whilst I noted the difference in ridge heights, these differences form a key characteristic of properties on Barncliffe Crescent. This is materially different to properties on Worcester Drive where one of the key characteristics is a uniformity in the ridge heights of properties. I also noted the development on Crimicar Lane, however the scale and massing of this flatted development is materially different to the appeal property. As a result, reference to these matters has not altered my findings in relation to the main issue. 9. Taking all these matters into account, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would cause demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with Policy CS74 of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy which seeks to promote high quality development. The proposal would also be contrary to Policies BE5 and H14 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan which seeks to ensure good quality design and that extensions respect the scale, form, character and detail of the original building. Other Matters 10. I note that the appellant has set out a number of benefits arising from the proposal, including making more effective use of the existing building and the high-quality design of the proposal ensuring compliance with modern safety standards. Whilst I acknowledge these benefits, I attach limited weight to these factors. 11. I have considered the appeal on its own merits based on the scheme before me and the issues regarding the handling or interpretation of the application by the Council are not matters for me to consider here. Appeal Decision 6002270 3 Conclusion 12. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. P Hatch INSPECTOR