Development proposed is: Single storey rear extension with WC/shower for disability use

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 August 2026 by Andrew Dale BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:03 September 2026 Appeal ref. 6012024 124 Ferrars Road, Sheffield S9 1SA • 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 Mrs Suriya Khan against the decision of Sheffield City Council. • The application ref. is 26/00753/FUL. • The development proposed is: Single storey rear extension with WC/shower for disability use. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary matters 2. The grounds of appeal express dissatisfaction with the Council for failing to give an opportunity to make changes to the extension which is needed for the appellant’s disabled son and for allegedly not visiting the appeal site. However frustrating such concerns might be, the chosen householder appeal procedure does not permit the Council to respond directly to the points raised and these are not matters for me as part of my remit in determining this appeal, which is confined to the particular planning merits of the scheme as submitted to the Council. 3. A revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. The new 2026 version does not however materially differ from the previous version insofar as it relates to the main issues in this householder appeal. The cases of the main parties will not therefore be prejudiced by my reference to the new version. I have proceeded on this basis. Main issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the proposed extension upon the living conditions of the occupiers of the terraced host property, with particular reference to the provision of private outdoor amenity space and its effect upon the residential amenity of the neighbouring dwellings at 122 and 126 Ferrars Road, with particular regard to the potential for loss of daylight, sunlight, outlook and privacy. Reasons 5. The appeal concerns a 2-storey, terraced house in an established residential street. Like the other houses in the same terrace on the western side of Ferrars Road, it was built with a rear off-shot or outrigger. Whilst the host property has a single Appeal Decision 6012024 2 storey, lean-to style, rear off-shot about 3m in depth, some other properties such as no. 122 to the north were built with a 2-storey rear off-shot. Beyond the original off-shot at no. 122, there is a single storey addition of more recent construction, an old brick shed and a sizeable outbuilding which appears to be unfinished. 6. The appellant seeks to elongate the rear off-shot to provide a larger kitchen and a bathroom. The extension would have a depth beyond the existing rear off-shot of about 5m and a width of about 2.46m and be set away from the boundary wall to no. 122 by about 1.175m. The route of an existing right of way across the garden to no. 122 would be adjusted. The appellant explains how the scheme would allow for a second toilet/shower room which would greatly improve the living conditions of a family member with an extensive set of special needs. 7. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The most relevant policies of the development plan include policy CS 74 of the Sheffield Core Strategy 2009 (SCS) and saved policies H14 and BE5 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan 1998 (SUDP). These policies, which all encourage good design in various ways, accord with the broad thrust of the Framework. I have also been referred to the Council’s Designing House Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). The SPG is not policy in itself but it carries weight as a material consideration in decision making. The provision of private outdoor amenity space 8. The proposal would result in the rear garden being somewhat smaller. The Council estimates that the existing rear amenity area amounts to about 57 sq.m and that about 40.5 sq.m would remain if the extension was to be built. These estimates have not been disputed by the appellant. They appear to me to be broadly accurate. The separation distance to the back boundary would be just over 7m if the new right of way is not excluded. 9. Guideline 4 of the SPG states that overdevelopment of a house plot with extensions that leave little garden space will not be permitted. In most circumstances the Council considers a garden size of 50 sq.m the minimum for houses with 2 or more bedrooms. A minimum separation distance to the back boundary of 10m is also normally required for reasons of neighbour’s privacy as well as amenity. Any extensions that would reduce garden areas below this size are unlikely to be considered acceptable, but exceptions may be made in areas of terraced housing. 10. Whilst these guideline dimensions would not be met, the remaining garden would still be of a size, shape and configuration which would provide a flexible outdoor area for this terraced house, including sufficient space for some forms of recreation and play, sitting out and relaxation, hanging washing and bin storage. The appellant may wish to forego the benefits of a larger garden, so as to provide the desired ground floor bathroom space for the family member with special needs. The separation distance to the back boundary would not lead to adverse implications for privacy or amenity as the sole rear-facing window would be to the bathroom and could be fitted with obscure glazing. No harm to the overall character of the area has been alleged by the Council. I consider that it would be reasonable to exercise the exception provided for in Guideline 4 of the SPG in this area of terraced housing. Appeal Decision 6012024 3 11. I find on the first main issue that the proposed extension would not result in overdevelopment or unsatisfactory living conditions for the occupiers of the terraced host property, with particular reference to the provision of private outdoor amenity space. Consequently, it would not conflict with policy H14 of the SUDP, the most relevant development plan policy for this issue, which states, amongst other things, that new development will be permitted provided that the site would not be overdeveloped and there would be no serious loss of existing garden space which would harm the character of the neighbourhood. Residential amenity of 122 and 126 Ferrars Road 12. In general, the off-shots and narrow side yards at the rear of these terraced properties have a close-knit relationship such that the occupiers tend to be mutually dependent on the maintenance of what openness there is at the rear of their dwellings in order to preserve their rather limited outlooks. 13. The extension would result in a significant depth of built development closer to the boundary with no. 122 than the existing outrigger at no. 124 and notably higher than both the existing boundary treatment and any wall or fence which could be constructed on that boundary as permitted development. 14. The rear ground floor of no. 122 has a window to a habitable room in the main rear wall very close to the common boundary and there are other ground floor windows in the opposing wall of its own rear off-shot and single storey addition. Even though the subject extension would have a single storey built form, it would impinge to an unacceptable degree upon the outlook from those adjacent ground floor windows, because of its proximity, height and excessive depth, reaching about 5m beyond the rear off-shot and about 8m beyond the main rear elevations of nos 122 and 124. The extension would present a far more solid and oppressive sense of enclosure close the boundary to no. 122, give rise to a tunnelling effect and appear unduly overbearing and visually obtrusive to those neighbours. 15. The extension would inevitably cause at least some diminution of natural daylight reaching the rear ground floor rooms of no. 122. There would also be an adverse effect on the level of sunlight reaching those windows and some of the rear yard outside, particularly in the afternoon. This would compound its visually obtrusive effect and the loss of outlook. The extension would cause a loss of privacy for the occupiers of no. 122 since the proposed kitchen window would directly face towards a kitchen window in the side of no. 122 only about 3m away at a point where there is gap in the concrete panel boundary structure. Should the gap be filled in, that boundary structure is otherwise only about 1.55m high which is insufficient to materially alleviate the overlooking. 16. The extension would have no windows facing towards no. 126 and given that the extension would lie to the north of no. 126, there is unlikely to be any material loss of sunlight experienced by those neighbours. Daylight and sunlight are however different. Given the extent of its rearward projection, the extension would inevitably cause a loss of outlook to the rear window in the rear off-shot of no. 126 and at least some reduction in natural daylight reaching that window. 17. Guideline 5 of the SPG expects unreasonable overshadowing and overdominance of neighbouring dwellings to be avoided and in this regard advises that a single Appeal Decision 6012024 4 storey extension built adjacent to another dwelling may not extend more than 3m beyond that other dwelling. There would a very clear infringement of the guideline in this case. Guideline 6 of the SPG states that extensions should protect and maintain minimum levels of privacy. The scheme has not been designed with this guideline uppermost in the mind insofar as 122 Ferrars Road is concerned. 18. I find on the second main issue that the proposed extension would harm the residential amenity of the neighbouring dwellings at 122 and 126 Ferrars Road, with particular regard to the potential for loss of daylight, sunlight, outlook and privacy. As the design, form and layout of the scheme would not take sufficient account of the amenity of adjacent residential properties, there would be conflict with the design principles and aims of policy CS 74 of the SCS and policies H14 and BE5 of the SUDP. Furthermore, the scheme would diverge too far from the design guidance set out in the SPG. Other material considerations 19. In addition to other buildings, I saw that a single storey extension extends significantly beyond the original rear building line at 122 Ferrars Road. This is also well illustrated in the photographs within the appellant’s statement. The appellant, perhaps understandably, is perplexed as to why a similar development was not permitted by the Council at no. 124. However, I do not have any planning history about this neighbouring property before me for comparison purposes. In particular, no evidence has been submitted to show that any of the developments at the rear of no. 122 beyond its original 2-storey rear off-shot benefit from planning permission. Insofar as the second main issue in this appeal is concerned, there is variation in the physical context in that there are no immediate neighbouring dwellings on the northern flank of no. 122. The SPG notes that in some areas it will be possible to point to extensions permitted in the past that do not follow the guidelines and that examples of poor quality extensions will not normally be allowed to determine the quality of future extensions. This other case therefore has little bearing on the appeal before me which must be determined on its own merits. 20. I understand that the extension is required to help meet the needs of an individual family member with disabilities, a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 to which the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) applies and to which I have had due regard. I am also mindful of Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 as set out under the Human Rights Act 1998, which require that decisions ensure respect for private and family life and the home. 21. Whilst the proposed development may provide more suitable accommodation to meet the needs of a family member, it does not follow from the PSED that the appeal should necessarily succeed. In the absence of any substantiated evidence, I have no way of knowing whether this particular proposal is the only means of improving the appellant’s home to meet those needs or whether such needs could be met in a less harmful way. Moreover, the larger part of the floor plan in the extension would be given over to a kitchen enlargement. In my view, the harm that would be caused to the residential amenity of the neighbouring dwellings outweighs the proposal’s benefits in terms of eliminating discrimination against persons with a protected characteristic. Moreover, whilst dismissing the appeal could interfere with the appellant’s human rights, these are qualified rights such that an interference Appeal Decision 6012024 5 may be justified where that is lawful and in the public interest. In this case, I consider that interference with those rights would be in accordance with the law and in pursuance of the well-established and legitimate aim of protecting the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. 22. The concerns raised by the occupiers of both neighbouring properties about the proposed alterations to the right of way are noted. However, I agree with the Council that such shared private routes are a civil matter between neighbours. Any private law matters or disputes are more usually addressed by a solicitor who, amongst other things, would review the deeds of the affected properties. Conclusion 23. For the reasons given and taking into account all other matters raised by all the parties, my finding on the second main issue is decisive to the outcome of the appeal. There is conflict with the development plan. I find no material considerations of sufficient weight to justify a grant of planning permission. The objections to the project could not be overcome by planning conditions. I therefore conclude that this appeal should not succeed. Andrew Dale INSPECTOR