Appeal 3337038

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the removal of existing garage to side and replace with 2-storey flat roof side extension providing gym, wc, utility, bedroom, and en-suite. Single storey flat roof rear extension providing kitchen and dining space with single storey pitched roof porch extension to front and internal alterations at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2023/1187/01/HOU, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

Since the determination of this application, the Government published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) on 19 December 2023 and updated it on 20 December 2023. Those parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have not been amended. As a result, I have not sought further submissions on the revised Framework, and I am satisfied that no party’s interests have been prejudiced by taking this approach.

The development has commenced and is substantially complete. I have therefore considered the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on host property and the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site, [site address] (No.82) comprises a semi-detached dwelling, which is set back from the road, with a garden and driveway to the front of the property. The surrounding area is predominantly characterised by semi-detached dwellings with hipped roofs. However, most have been extended with varying design and finishes. A number of the dwellings on [address] have been extended to the side, including the adjoining property [address] (No.80), which has a two-storey side extension with a flat roof.

The proposal includes a single storey rear extension, porch extension to the front and a two-storey extension to the side and rear. The front and porch extension has been designed with a pitched roof, and the single storey rear extension with a flat roof. The Council has not raised any concerns in relation to these aspects of the scheme and based on the evidence before me I see no reason to disagree.

In terms of the two-storey extension, it extends from the side wall of the existing dwelling to the boundary with [address], which has a single storey extension built up to the boundary. The two-storey extension includes a flat roof with a parapet, which creates a visual contrast to the hipped roof of the original dwelling. The proposal also incorporates sustainable design measures, including a solar PV system, with battery storage to provide sufficient energy for the dwelling.

I have had regard to the guidance contained within the Newcastle City Council Householder Design Guide 2001, updated 2011 (HDG) which states that two storey flat roof extensions will not normally be allowed. However, the flat roof extension is set back from the front elevation, reinstates an element of symmetry to the pair of semi-detached dwellings and is of a broadly similar appearance in terms of its bulk, design, and massing. As such, I find that the use of a flat roof design is justified on the basis that it follows the design of the extension to No.80, ensuring that the proposal achieves a satisfactory relationship to the host property and adjoining property.

There are also a number of two-storey, flat roof side extensions within the wider street. Therefore, I find that it does not appear as an incongruous addition to the host property or surrounding area.

Consequently, I therefore conclude that the proposal does not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host property or surrounding area. Accordingly, there is no conflict with Policy CS15 of the Gateshead and [site address] [name] 2010-2030, adopted 2015 and Policies DM20 and DM23 of the Urban Core Plan, Policies DM20 and DM23 of the [site address] Development and Allocations Plan 2015- 2030, adopted

These policies require amongst other things, high and sustainable quality design that responds the character of the existing buildings and surrounding area with respect to the design, scale and materials used on the building.

I also find for the reasons set out above, that the proposal does not conflict with the guidance contained within the HDG.

I have considered which planning conditions are required having regard to the tests contained in Planning Practice Guidance. As the development has been substantially completed it is not necessary to include the standard time limit condition. However, it is necessary to include a condition (1) that specifies the approved plans in order for clarity and precision over the scale, type and form of development that is approved by this decision.

It is also necessary to impose a condition (2) which requires that the external surface materials match the host property to ensure an acceptable visual appearance of the development. A further condition (3) is necessary to require the upper floor window in the side elevation to be obscure glazed for the lifetime of the development.

For the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: • THD23-026 01 Rev P1 Location Plan • THD23-026 03 Rev P1 Proposed Site Plan • THD23-026 15 Rev P5 [name] • THD23-026 16 Rev P5 [name]

Except where indicated otherwise on the approved plans, the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The first-floor window in the north elevation shall be obscure glazed. The window shall be retained as such for the life of the development.