Appeal 3332391

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for extension and new roof to existing outbuilding and conversion to home office/temporary accommodation at [site address] , Gateshead [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/23/00687/HHA73, dated 26 July 2023, without compliance with conditions 2 and 3 previously imposed on planning permission [name]/22/01371/HHA dated 9 February 2023, but subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan; Existing and Proposed Site Plan SCRPP01 Rev02; Proposed 01 SCRPP04 Rev 02; Proposed 02 SCRPP05 Rev02; Proposed 03 SCRPP06 Rev02.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling at [site address] .

Planning permission was granted at the site in February 2023 for the conversion of a garage to a home office/temporary accommodation, including a 3.5m front extension. The application subject to this appeal effectively sought to replace the previously approved plans with different plans that increase the front extension to 5m in length (1.5m additional) and add a 2m rear extension.

At my site visit I saw that development had already begun, but it was apparent that there were some discrepancies with the revised plans that I am being asked to consider. These include a tall wall running from the front of the building to the highway and some changes to window openings. Thus, to avoid prejudicing the Council and any interested parties who may not be aware of these changes, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans and not what is currently on site.

The main issues are the effect on the character and appearance of the area, and upon the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] in terms of outlook, light, and privacy.

The appeal property occupies a large corner site within an established residential area containing a mix of bungalows and two-storey, semi-detached houses of different designs and materials.

The outbuilding in question is located at the rear of the property, facing towards [address]. Although the proposals would increase the length of the building, its full extent would not be readily apparent from the street. Further, as it would not project beyond the front wall of [address], it would not interrupt any important building line considerations in the street.

In addition, its scale would remain clearly subordinate to the host dwelling, and due to the size of the garden and the separation from the road, side, and rear boundaries, it would not appear cramped within the plot. Nor would it deprive the property of adequate garden space.

Matching materials are proposed, and as this is already specified on the plans, a separate condition to this effect is unnecessary. I note that the Council did not raise any specific objection to the building materials.

Overall, the development would not be excessive or unduly conspicuous and would have no significant impact on the street scene. Accordingly, there would be no harm caused to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal therefore complies with Policy CS15 of the [name] and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne (2015) (the CS), and Policy MSGP24 of the [name] for Growing Places Local Plan Document for Gateshead (2021) (the LPD), which together seek design that is compatible with local character and distinctiveness including in terms of scale, height, massing and layout. It also complies with advice in the Council’s Household Alterations and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in these regards.

The proposal would increase the length of the development along the boundary with [address] (No 2), which lies to the south and at a lower level to the appeal site.

Nevertheless, No 2 has a driveway at the side and does not contain any habitable room windows in its side elevation. The canopy over the driveway would also help to obscure the full height of the building when using the driveway. There appears to be a habitable room window in the front elevation of No 2, but the proposed front extension would not project beyond this window. As such, I do not consider that the additional forward projection would have a significantly greater impact on the light and outlook of No 2 compared to what has already been approved.

A more notable change is that the proposal would now project beyond the rear wall of No 2 by around 2m. However, I saw that No 2’s nearest window is obscurely glazed. This, together with the separation from the boundary and sloping roof form, would ensure that the rearward extension of the building would not appear unduly dominant or cause any significant shading effects for the rear outlook and garden of No 2, notwithstanding the difference in ground levels.

The reasons for refusal also refer to a loss of privacy to No 2. However, no further explanation is given in the planning officer’s report and I cannot identify any reason why the proposal would cause a loss of privacy to No 2.

I therefore find that the development would not materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] in terms of outlook, light, and privacy. As such, the proposal complies with the residential amenity requirements of CS Policy CS14, LPD Policy MSGP17, and the SPD.

The approved plans condition has been amended to reflect the latest approved plans and I have reimposed the condition relating to the use of the building as this is uncontested and appears still to be relevant. However, I have not reimposed the standard time limit condition because works have already begun, while a condition relating to building materials is unnecessary as these are indicated on the approved plans.

For the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should succeed and a further planning permission should be granted.