First floor rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 May 2026 by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007362 21 Wensley Road, Waverley, Rotherham, S60 8WD • 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 D Whittam against the decision of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is RB2026/0102. • The development proposed is a first floor rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number 19 Wensley Road, with regards to outlook; and whether the proposed development would provide for acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regards to outlook. Reasons Living Conditions – No 19 3. The appeal property is a detached two storey dwelling. It is located within a modern housing estate in an area largely characterised by the presence of two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings with gardens to the rear. 4. The juxtaposition of houses in the area is such that there is a considerable degree of overlooking across neighbouring gardens to the rear of dwellings, albeit the presence of boundary features, garages, extensions and outbuildings provides for a considerable degree of privacy at ground level. 5. The appeal dwelling, like its immediate neighbours, fronts Calver Way and is set back from this road behind an expansive area comprising a grass verge and pavement, together with a front access driveway and garden/parking area. It has a garage set to the side and rear of the dwelling and there is an extension to this, extending to the end of the rear garden. 6. The appeal dwelling’s rear elevation faces towards the side elevation and rear garden of Number 25 Wensley Road from a relatively short distance. Number 19’s garage and an outbuilding beyond this, run the entire length of the shared rear boundary with the appeal property. Appeal Decision 6007362 2 7. The proposed development would add a first floor above the appeal dwelling’s rear conservatory. The immediate proximity, height and rearwards projection of No 19’s garage and adjoining outbuilding are such that the proposed development would have little discernible impact on the outlook from No 19. The eaves of the proposed extension would sit below the ridge height of No 19’s garage and the proposed roof would be pitched such that its ridge would extend away from the rear of No 19. 8. Consequently, No 19’s outbuildings would largely obscure the proposal and minimal if any, overshadowing of No 19’s rear garden – situated beyond that dwelling’s outbuildings and to the west of the proposed development - would occur. 9. In the above regard, I am also mindful that the Council accepts that the proposal would not infringe the 45-degree guideline and that there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would result in any unacceptable overshadowing. 10. Given all of the above, I find that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Number 19 Wensley Road, with regards to outlook and would not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy SP55 of the Rotherham Local Plan Sites and Policies (2018); to Policy CS28 of the Rotherham Core Strategy (2014); or to the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2025) (SPD), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Living conditions 11. In setting out that a proposal which results in a habitable room not providing sufficient outlook will normally be refused, the Council’s SPD states that high level windows/roof lights do not provide a sufficient outlook to a habitable room and result in a poor standard of amenity. 12. The proposed extension would be reliant on rooflights to provide its only outlook. These would be set at such a height that they would be well above the eyeline of any occupants and consequently, they would only provide for a severely restricted outlook. 13. Consequently, the proposal would result in a confined and oppressive environment within a habitable room. 14. Given this, I find that the proposed development would not provide for acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regards to outlook and would therefore be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy SP55 of the Rotherham Local Plan Sites and Policies (2018); and to Policy CS28 of the Rotherham Core Strategy (2014), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Other Matters 15. The appellant, in support of his case, refers to planning permission being granted for a development at No 19. However, there is no substantive information before me to demonstrate that the proposed development would be so similar to this other permitted development as to provide for direct comparison. Notwithstanding this and in any case, the proposal the subject of this appeal would result in the harm identified and hence the decision below. Appeal Decision 6007362 3 Conclusion 16. The proposal would fail to provide for acceptable living conditions for future occupiers and consequently, the appeal does not succeed. N McGurk INSPECTOR