The Coach House, 14 Oakcroft Mews, Sheffield, S10 3AW

The Coach House, 14 Oakcroft Mews, Sheffield, S10 3AW — Sheffield City Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 August 2023 by Samuel Watson BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19th October 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/J4423/W/23/3318218 14, The Coach House, Oakcroft Mews, Fulwood Road, Sheffield S10 3AW • 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 Ms E Scholey against the decision of Sheffield City Council. • The application Ref 22/02108/FUL, dated 31 May 2022, was refused by notice dated 13 December 2022. • The development proposed is erection of a two-storey side extension to dwellinghouse. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a two-storey side extension to dwellinghouse at 14, The Coach House, Oakcroft Mews, Fulwood Road, Sheffield S10 3AW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/02108/FUL, dated 31 May 2022, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The Coach House, 14 Oakcroft Mews, Sheffield, S10 3AW — Sheffield City Council — Appeal Decision 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans numbered: 21-138-08-01, 21-138-08-03, 21-138-08-10 rev B 3) The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in materials that match those of the host building. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development above has been taken from the Council’s decision notice, and I note it was also used within the appellant’s appeal form. This description is more accurate to the proposal before me than that used in the planning application form. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Ranmoor Conservation Area (the RCA). Reasons 4. The RCA covers a sizeable area of predominantly large residential dwellings set within spacious and green plots. The main exceptions to this are the dense residential and commercial terraces on the opposite side of Fulwood Road to the appeal site. The significance of this conservation area stems, at least in part, from the extent to which the properties and their historic relationship to https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

The Coach House, 14 Oakcroft Mews, Sheffield, S10 3AW — Sheffield City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/J4423/W/23/3318218 each other are still legible. This includes the use of original materials, the layout of plots, and presence of historic outbuildings. 5. The appeal site itself consists of a former coach house to the front of the site and set perpendicular to the road. Towards the middle of the plot is a large, former, dwelling. Both of these buildings are finished in stone with slate rooves. A stone wall to the front of the site provides a level of screening and separation from the Fulwood Road. This site, by way of the two properties and their relationship to each other, contribute positively to the wider RCA. 6. At the time of my visit, works were being carried out on the main house and coach house to convert and otherwise alter the properties from a care home to a mixture of dwellings and flats1. The conversion of the coach house provides one dwelling. 7. From my observations on site, and the details before me, it is clear that the approved works to the coach house have significantly changed its appearance. These changes include the creation of a two-storey front extension with a front facing gable and a significant area of glazing.

The Coach House, 14 Oakcroft Mews, Sheffield, S10 3AW — Sheffield City Council — Appeal Decision Other changes including the removal of a large canopy to the front of the coach house and the enlargement of the main roof area. Ultimately these works, when finished, will result in the coach house appearing more domestic than it would have. 8. Along with these works, the proposal before me would incorporate a two-storey side extension, on the Fulwood Road side of the property, to provide a snug and store room. The proposal would have a forward projection with a first-floor glazed area and front facing gable similar to, although smaller than, that already approved on the coach house. The proposed extension would appear as a largely domestic feature given the design of the front gable and the substantial use of glazing. However, as noted above, this would reflect the front elevation of the coach house which is already somewhat domestic. 9. Given the modern design of the extension, and its subservient relationship to the main body of the coach house, the proposal would also be readily legible as an addition and the historic form of the property would not be lost.

The Coach House, 14 Oakcroft Mews, Sheffield, S10 3AW — Sheffield City Council — Appeal Decision As the roof of the extension would be set lower than the main roof of the coach house, the extension would also appear subservient to its host, further protecting the building and its relationship to the wider site and RCA. 10. I note the wall to the front of the site and that this may provide some screening of the coach house and the proposed works. However, given the wall’s height and that views over it are easily achieved, I give this matter very little weight. 11. Nevertheless, the existing works have already resulted in a domestic appearance to the coach house and the proposal would not be so significant as to unacceptably increase this domestic character. Moreover, the extension would be subservient to the coach house and would maintain its relationship with the main house. Given its relative scale and appearance it would have a neutral effect on the historic interest and significance of the RCA. 12. In light of the above, the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Ranmoor Conservation Area and would therefore comply with Policies H14, BE5 and BE16 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan 1 Granted under planning permission 19/04500/FUL. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

The Coach House, 14 Oakcroft Mews, Sheffield, S10 3AW — Sheffield City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/J4423/W/23/3318218 (March 1998) and Policy CS74 of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy (March 2009). These policies collectively, and amongst other matters, seek for development to be of a high-quality that respects and complements its surroundings with regard to scale, form and architectural style. Developments are also required to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of conservation areas. It would also comply with Chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework, including Paragraphs 199 to 202 regarding the protection of the significance of heritage assets including conservation areas. Conditions 13. The council have not suggested any conditions as part of their appeal submissions. However, I have had regard to the advice on planning conditions set out by the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. 14. Therefore, for certainty, I have set out the timescale for the commencement of development. A condition is also necessary, for certainty and enforceability, requiring the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

The Coach House, 14 Oakcroft Mews, Sheffield, S10 3AW — Sheffield City Council — Appeal Decision These are standard conditions and I find them to be uncontentious, I have therefore not gone back to the parties to seek their views on these conditions. 15. It is also necessary, in the interests of the character and appearance of RCA, to impose a condition requiring the materials of the proposed extension to match those of the host building. I note the appellant intends to match the materials used on the main house and coach house, I therefore did not find it necessary to go back to the parties to seek their views on this condition. Conclusion 16. There are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The Coach House, 14 Oakcroft Mews, Sheffield, S10 3AW — Sheffield City Council — Samuel Watson INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3