Double storey side and rear extension, single storey front and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 May 2026 by Richard Gilbert BA (Hons) MSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6th July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005872 4 Parkson Road, Rotherham S60 3JQ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Sufyan Arshid Sabir against the decision of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is RB2025/1642. • The development proposed is a double storey side and rear extension, single storey front and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 6 Parkson Road, with particular regard to outlook. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached house in a residential suburb adjacent to a substation. 6 Parkson Road (No.6), is separated from the appeal property by fencing. The garden of No.6 includes a patio positioned in front of the rear elevation where two large ground floor windows are situated. 4. The proposal would introduce a long, high brick flank wall along a substantial section of the shared boundary which would rise well above the existing fence line. The two storey element that is set back from the boundary would exacerbate the effect of the proposal on the outlook from both the garden and the rear facing windows of No.6. 5. Although I accept that the orientation of the proposal in relation to No.6 would prevent direct overshadowing, the overall effect of the extension, including its two-storey element, would be an unduly dominant and imposing feature which would dominate the outlook for users of both the rooms at the rear of No.6 and the patio and garden. 6. The Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2025) (SPD) states that an extension close to either a habitable room window of a neighbouring property, or to its private garden, should not have an overbearing effect on that property or an unreasonable effect on its outlook. As such, single-storey rear extensions, on or close to a boundary, should project no more than 4 metres from a neighbouring property’s existing rear elevation. The SPD further states that Appeal Decision 6005872 2 current permitted development rights allow for some extensions to be constructed without planning permission. 7. Of the two ground floor windows located at the rear of No.6, the right-hand window is positioned directly beside the shared boundary and would be immediately adjacent to the single-storey part of the rear extension. At approximately 6 metres in projection, the proposed development far exceeds the 4 metre limit set out in the SPD and would take up a disproportionate volume of the boundary. When combined with its height, the excessive projection of the proposal would harmfully curtail the outlook otherwise available from the neighbouring window thereby detrimentally affecting the living conditions of the occupiers. 8. Whilst the proposal would provide additional living space that would benefit the occupiers of the appeal property, this does not outweigh the harm I have identified in respect of its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.6. I note the correspondence between the parties, particularly the Council’s initial indication of approval of the scheme. However, I have determined the appeal based on the plans and evidence before me. 9. My attention has been drawn to a 6 metre single storey rear extension permitted under prior approval in November 2025. I have not been provided with any details of that scheme. However, as that permission remains extant, there is a realistic prospect of it being implemented, and it forms a genuine fallback position. However, it is likely that it would be materially different from the scheme before me in that it would not include the two storey element and therefore would not generate comparable harm. 10. Therefore I conclude that for the reasons set out above, the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 6 Parkson Road, with particular regard to outlook. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy CS28 of the Rotherham Local Plan Core Strategy 2013-2028 (2014) and SP55 of Rotherham Local Plan Sites and Policies (2018) which seek development proposals that should be responsive to their context as well as the size, scale, mass, height and grain of surrounding development. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed. Richard Gilbert INSPECTOR