Alteration to existing house to form a gable and pitched roof and installation of external wall insulation, demolition of existing chimneys and front boundary wall, erection of side extension with associated canopy and landscaping to form an integral basement garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 August 2026 by Ian McHugh DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011433 81 Townend Street, Sheffield, S10 1NL • 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 Matthew Dowling and Ross McLean against the decision of Sheffield City Council. • The application Ref is 26/00133/FUL. • The development proposed is alteration to existing house to form a gable and pitched roof and installation of external wall insulation, demolition of existing chimneys and front boundary wall, erection of side extension with associated canopy and landscaping to form an integral basement garage. Procedural Matter 1. On 17 August 2026, the Government published the National Planning Policy Framework 2026 (NPPF). It does not contain any provisions that raise material issues in respect of this appeal and I have not found it necessary to seek comments from the main parties. Where relevant, I have made reference to the 2026 version in my reasoning below. Decision 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alteration to existing house to form a gable and pitched roof and installation of external wall insulation, demolition of existing chimneys and front boundary wall, erection of side extension with associated canopy and landscaping to form an integral basement garage, at 81 Townend Street, Sheffield, S10 1NL, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 26/00133/FUL, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing Numbers: P02, P05, P06, P07, P10 and P11. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling, which is situated in a residential area in a relatively wide and elevated plot. This part of Townend Street Appeal Decision 6011433 2 contains an eclectic mix of house types in terms of age, scale, design and external materials. Consequently, there is no distinctive or common characteristic that restricts or prevents new development. 5. The proposal is as described in the heading above and comprises a number of different elements. The finished result would be a dwelling of contemporary style and design. It is fair to say that it would appear completely different to the existing property. 6. The Council considers that the proposal would be an incongruous and unsympathetic addition to the streetscene, because of its size, scale and height. Furthermore, the Council is critical of many of the design details, including the external materials, chimney design, loss of the boundary wall and the ‘basement level’ garage. 7. The Council states that because of the above, the proposal conflicts with Policy CS74 of the Council’s Core Strategy (CS) and with Policies H14 and BE5 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Reference is also made by the Council to a conflict with paragraph 135 of the previous version of the NPPF. As stated above, this has now been superseded by the 2026 Framework. 8. Policy CS 74 of the CS requires (amongst other things) that the design of new development is of a high quality and that it reflects the townscape and character of the area. Policies H14 and BE5 of the UDP contain similar provisions. In addition, Policy DP3 of the NPPF 2026 states that development proposals should respond to their context so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings. 9. The Council also refers to its Supplementary Planning Guidance – Designing House Extensions, which provides detailed advice on extending residential properties. This also seeks to ensure that extensions are compatible with the character and built form of the area. 10. As I have stated above, the proposed extensions and alterations would result in a dwelling that would appear distinctly contemporary and different to others along this stretch of Townend Street. It would also be relatively large and I agree with the Council that it would not be a subordinate addition to the existing dwelling. Having said that, the ridge height of the extended dwelling would be comparable to the neighbouring buildings and the plot coverage, in terms of its width, would also reflect other properties on the street. 11. I acknowledge that some of the details, including the proposed external materials (which are specified on the plans) and chimney design would be different to other properties. However, I consider them to be appropriate insofar that they would complement the contemporary design of the development. I also observed during my visit that there is a range of external materials that have been used on other properties in the vicinity of the appeal site. Whilst the predominant material is natural stone, red and buff coloured brickwork and render of different colours is also evident. 12. With regard to the demolition of the front boundary wall and the creation of a garage at the lower level, I observed at my site visit that a number of properties have previously demolished walls or parts of walls to create driveways or other entrances to the dwellings. These gaps are a feature of the streetscene and I am Appeal Decision 6011433 3 not persuaded that the appeal proposal would be at odds with its surroundings in that regard. 13. The appellants have drawn my attention to other examples of contemporary dwellings in the local area. Whilst each case must be considered on its merits, these examples demonstrate that the Council has previously accepted this approach in streets of a traditional character and appearance. 14. Overall, I consider the design of the proposal to be high quality. The plot coverage would not be at odds with its surroundings and the proposal would add interest and variety to the streetscene. Accordingly, the proposal, does not, in my opinion, conflict with the provisions of the Development, as referred to above. Conditions 15. Neither party has suggested any conditions in the event of the appeal being allowed. In addition to the standard condition requiring the development to commence within three years, a condition is also imposed specifying the approved plans. These accord with the list stated in the Council’s decision notice, plus drawing number P02 – Proposed Site Plan. Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal be allowed. Ian McHugh INSPECTOR