1st floor extension with pitched roof above previous ground floor flat-roofed extension, with alterations to existing windows / doors

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 March 2026 by P Hatch BA (Hons) Ad. Dip MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6003554 Carsick Grange Cottage, 32 Snaithing Park Road, Sheffield, S10 3LJ • 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 Rhys Dunlop against the decision of Sheffield City Council. • The application Ref is 25/02831/FUL (Formerly PP-14354080). • The development proposed is the 1st floor extension with pitched roof above previous ground floor flat-roofed extension, with alterations to existing windows / doors. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host building and the character of the area, giving special regard to the effect on the Ranmoor Conservation Area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is within Ranmoor Conservation Area (RCA). The statutory duty set out in Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act 1990) requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. 4. The RCA occupies a residential area to the west of Sheffield and is focused on the Victorian suburb of Ranmoor. The significance of the RCA is defined by its architectural interest, including a range of large Victorian villas which make use of natural sandstone as building materials, varied roof forms and includes large sash windows and ornate roofing detail. 5. The appeal property consists of the original dwellinghouse of Carsick Grange Cottage, which is set back from Snaithing Park Road and set in verdant grounds. The property includes a number of noteworthy features such as original stone windowsills and sash windows, ornate roofing including distinctive finial and coping detail and prominent tall chimneystacks. In this regard the appeal property is a positive example of the architectural interest found within the RCA. 6. Along with the original dwelling is a two-storey former garage to the rear which has been connected to the main house by a single storey, flat-roofed extension. The extension provides an internal connection between the main house and the former garage, which has now been incorporated as part of the residential accommodation. The scale and nature of the existing flat-roofed element ensures Appeal Decision 6003554 2 that the elevations of the original dwellinghouse can still be enjoyed and its key architectural features, such as the window and roofing detail, along with the tall chimneystacks, remain visually prominent and key features of the property. 7. Whilst occupying a similar footprint to the existing single storey flat-roofed extension, the proposed two-storey pitched roof extension would result in a substantial addition and would remove the remaining elements of the original rear elevation of the main dwellinghouse. The scale and massing of the proposed extension would lead to the loss of key original features, including the loss of one of the chimneystacks and a large sash window to the rear which are of important architectural interest. 8. Due to the setback of the property from Snaithing Park Road and its verdant grounds the proposed extension would not be readily observed from the street. However, the scale of the proposed extension and its massing would result in a substantial change to the character of the property itself. Whilst set lower than the ridge height of the original dwellinghouse, the extension would infill the space at a first-floor level, linking it to the former garage building. Consequently, the extension would not be subordinate to the original dwellinghouse and would overly dominate its character and its original architectural value. 9. The scale of the proposed extension, along with the loss of key features to the property such as the tall chimneystack and large sash window to the rear, would result in adverse harm to the character and appearance of the building, and harm its significance in the context of the architectural value found within the RCA. In terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the harm that I have identified would be at the lower end of the less than substantial spectrum. However, this level of harm does not equate to less than substantial importance and weight, indeed I attach considerable importance and weight to this harm. In accordance with the Framework, this harm needs to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 10. The proposal would increase the habitable accommodation of the dwelling, and there would be some economic benefits arising from the construction process and the ongoing maintenance of the property. However, given the scale of the proposal, and the generous layout of the existing dwelling, I am satisfied that these benefits should only be given modest weight. 11. I have considered the other benefits put forward by the appellant, specifically the optimal and continued use of the property as a residential dwelling, further investment in the property and the reduction in pressure for development elsewhere in the RCA. However, there has been little evidence put before me to substantiate these benefits and consequently I afford little weight to these matters. 12. Paragraph 212 of the Framework establishes that great weight should be given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset. In this context I find that the limited public benefits of the proposal are not sufficient to outweigh the degree of harm identified to the designated heritage asset. Accordingly, there is conflict with the conserving and enhancing the historic environment objectives of the Framework. 13. In the overall planning balance, I find the benefits of the scheme advanced by the appellant are not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified. The Appeal Decision 6003554 3 proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building and the significance of the RCA. 14. Consequently, the proposal would not accord with Policy CS74 of the Sheffield Core Strategy, which expects high quality development to enhance distinctive features, and Policies H14 and BE5 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan, which seek to promote high quality design which is in scale and character with the original and neighbouring buildings. The proposal is also not consistent with Policies BE15 or BE16 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan which seeks high quality design that complements the form of its surroundings in terms of scale and character and preserve and enhance both Conservation Areas and buildings of special historic interest. The proposal would also not be consistent with the ambitions of the Council’s SPG on ‘Designing House Extensions’ specifically Guidelines 1 and 2 which require new development to be compatible with the built form of the area and not detract from the original dwelling. 15. Furthermore, I find that the proposal would fail to meet the requirements of the Act 1990 as the positive contribution that the host dwelling makes to the character and appearance of the RCA would be eroded, and as a consequence harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the conservation area and its significance as a designated heritage asset. Its character or appearance would neither be preserved or enhanced. Conclusion 16. In conclusion, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no other material considerations, including the Framework, that outweigh this conflict. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. P Hatch INSPECTOR