Appeal 6001071

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new rear dormer to first floor flat at [site address] , Wallsend, [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00810/FUL, subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 1492/01A, 1492/03A and 1492/04A.

The dormer has already been constructed and therefore I have determined the appeal on the basis that it is for a retrospective proposal.

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

The dormer is on the rear roof plane of the host property. It is most readily visible from the alleyway which runs between the terrace rows that back onto one another, and from the facing properties. Nonetheless, the alleyway appears to be a publicly assessable area and as thus forms a street scene as such, of which the appeal property is part. The rear elevations of the properties on [address] are dominated by a number of two-storey flat-roofed offshoots, to the extent that the main pitched roof planes of the properties nearest to the appeal site are barely appreciable when stood in the alleyway.

Any views of the main roofs, and the appeal dormer, are only very fleeting when walking past. Whilst the dormer is clearly visible when stationary in the alleyway directly behind the appeal property, it is still the physical dominance of the many offshoots which draw the attention of the eye, and it is this arrangement which primarily defines the character and appearance of the area. The appeal dormer is very much a secondary feature and one which has only a limited impact on its surroundings in that context. Even with dormers not being a feature of the street scene in this area, in these circumstances there has been no visual harm caused by the addition of the appeal development.

Furthermore, the Council accepts that a rear dormer would, in principle, comply with the Design Quality Supplementary Planning Document 2018 (SPD). Whilst this envisages a smaller dormer than has been constructed, the overarching aim of this guidance is to avoid a design which appears overly dominant in the street scene and one which is detrimental to the property on which it sits. For the reasons that I have set out, and considering the specific surroundings in which it is found, the appeal dormer is neither overly dominant in the street scene nor detrimental to the property on which it is built.

In conclusion, the development has not led to harm to the character and appearance of the host property or the surrounding area. Consequently, it accords with Policies DM6.1 and DM6.2 of the North Tyneside Local Plan 2017, where collectively they seek to safeguard character and appearance, and with the aims of the SPD in the same respect.

Representations from interested parties have raised matters relating to the impact on living conditions. There is a reasonable degree of separation between the dormer and the dwellings which face towards it. There are also pre-existing windows facing in that direction, and therefore what has been constructed does not materially alter what would have been the baseline situation. I am satisfied that because of each of those individual factors the development has not led to a harmful impact on privacy. The development does not extend beyond the rear elevation of the host property, and it does not have an overbearing impact on other properties, including the ground floor flat.

The development is the extension of an existing residential property in a residential area, and I have no concerns regarding noise generation in such an instance. There is nothing substantive before me to suggest that the development has or will affected parking provision in the area. Concern is raised as to the creating of a precedent, however I have set out why the appeal proposal is acceptable on its own merits having had regard to all relevant planning matters raised. Any future proposals put forward would need to be considered upon the same basis.

As the development has already been undertaken and is acceptable in its visual finish and in all other aspects of its impact, I consider it only necessary to impose a condition setting out the approved plans. This condition is required to provide certainty as to what is approved.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.