Appeal 3339769

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the development on i) the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area; and ii) the privacy of neighbouring occupants.

[address] is a pedestrianised street lined by a row of traditional two-storey terraced houses. The terrace forms a highly distinctive and cohesive group due to repetitive architectural features and a front roofslope which has retained its original form, save for the insertion of a few small rooflights with a low profile to the roof.

The proposal would replace one of the three existing rooflights at the appeal property with a triple window/balcony system. Each individual window would have an upper and lower section and once fully opened would allow access onto an inset balcony area containing glass balustrades at the front and sides.

At my site visit I saw that the roof of the terrace can be easily appreciated from [address]. The proposed window system would be considerably and noticeably larger than any of the other rooflights on the front of the terrace, and with a more distinct projection above the roof slope due to the presence of the balcony balustrades. It would therefore stand out as a distinct departure from the more modest and discreet roof features currently found on the terrace, creating a substantial disruption to the roofscape. This would detract from the original form and traditional character of the appeal property and terraced building as a whole.

The appellant has highlighted other roof alterations in the local area, including some which have similarities to the proposal. However, these are not seen in the same context as the appeal site and are not so numerous that they should be regarded as a defining characteristic of the area. Furthermore, the planning status of these examples is not known to me. In any event, the presence of other apparently similar development is not a reason, on its own, to allow harmful development at the appeal site. I have necessarily assessed the appeal on its own merits.

I therefore conclude that the development would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host building and its immediate surroundings. In this regard, there is conflict with Policies DM6.1 and DM6.2 of the North Tyneside Local Plan 2017 (the LP), as well as the Council’s Design Quality Supplementary Planning Document 2018 (SPD), which amongst other things, seek high quality design which complements the form and character of the original building and area.

The proposal would allow a person to stand in the balcony area, beyond the roof plane, where they would have a more open view over the front gardens of the terrace than at present from the existing sky-facing rooflights.

Nevertheless, these gardens are already open to public view from [address], a well-used pedestrian route. They are also closely overlooked by other front windows within the terrace. As such, the level of privacy within these gardens is already very low. The proposed balcony would not change this in any meaningful way, notwithstanding the views it would offer.

The neighbouring properties to the northwest are more distant and their rear gardens are well screened by a dense belt of mature trees. I note that the Council did not raise any privacy concerns in relation to these properties.

I therefore conclude that the development would not cause a harmful loss of privacy to neighbouring occupants from overlooking. Thus, the proposal complies with the neighbour amenity protection requirements of the SPD and LP Policy DM6.2. However, the absence of harm in this regard is a neutral matter.

The development would benefit the occupants of the appeal property with improved living space, and I have noted the absence of objections from the public. However, these are not matters which outweigh the harm I have identified and the resultant conflict with the development plan as a whole.

I have found that the development would be harmful in character and appearance terms. For this reason, the appeal should be dismissed.