Appeal 6001738

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the [address]/[address] Area of Special Character (the ASC); • highway safety; and • surface water drainage.

[address] is a residential street and falls within the ASC, designated under Policy MSGP23 of the [name] for Growing Places Local Plan Document for Gateshead (2021) (LPD) where a high level of importance must be given to the design of development so that the positive and unique character of the townscape environment is maintained or enhanced.

The ASC is characterised by low density dwellings set back from the road with long linear rear gardens. Properties have a varied appearance, and the appeal site lies to the rear of No 51, a stone bungalow that has recently been renovated. No 51 is a modest bungalow set within a generous plot reflective of the broad characteristics of the ASC. While overgrown and unkempt the appeal site’s open and verdant qualities contribute positively to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The Placemaking Supplementary Planning Document (2022) (SPD) explains that the ASC’s character was adversely affected by development in the late 1980s and 1990s on infill sites and garden land. Design guidance in the SPD resists back land development to protect the character and setting of existing buildings. Regardless, the open areas to the rear of the houses on [address] have been significantly eroded and back land development is a well-established feature that contributes to defining the character of the area, even if some of these developments were prior to the designation of the ASC, determined under a previous development plan or approved because of a fallback position.

I observed existing back land dwellings adjacent to the appeal site at No 49a, and further away at No 57a. No 55 has development in the garden however this is of a modest scale more akin to outbuildings, rather than a dwelling. As such, it is not the case that the appeal site is flanked on either side by existing dwellings. Nevertheless, given the prevailing character of the site’s surrounding area, where a number of existing back land developments can clearly be seen from the appeal site, the layout of the proposal would respond positively to the existing pattern of development in this section of [address]. It would be relatively comparable in footprint to the other back land properties nearby that it would be seen with, respecting the secondary building line that has been created by Nos 47a and 49a.

The proposal would ensure that a large part of the original garden remains open to the rear and side, and a generous garden would remain for No 51. Moreover, the characteristic linear gardens have already been altered in this location, with part of No 53’s garden to the rear now forming part of No 51, resulting in a wider garden that can readily accommodate a new dwelling and detached garage. Consequently, taking the site-specific circumstances of the appeal site into consideration, the introduction of the proposal in an area where the immediate surroundings are characterised by back land development would reflect the surrounding pattern of development.

While the nearby back land development has a varied design and appearance, the scale of the built form is in general harmony with each other, and it does not compete with the dwellings that front [address]. That would not be the case at the appeal site. The proposal’s scale and massing would result in a substantial development, inconsistent with the existing back land development in the immediate surroundings. Together with the three-bay detached garage with mezzanine storage, the proposed dwelling’s physical presence would appear as a bulky dominant development. Furthermore, the contemporary design with extensive fenestration on the main elevation in particular, would draw the eye, exacerbating the proposal’s visual intrusion.

Owing to the siting of the proposed development it would not be readily visible from the street apart from glimpsed views in passing and so the proposal would not detract from the prevailing character and appearance of the ASC when viewed from [address], nor would it detract from the character and setting of No 51 or the neighbouring properties from the street scene. Yet the development plan policies are not restricted to views from the public domain. While the proposal would largely be screened to the rear by the mature landscaping and the proposed landscaping scheme would help to soften it, the development would be highly visible from the surrounding dwellings and rear gardens. In these views, the disruption to the prevailing character and appearance of the area from the appeal scheme would be readily apparent.

For these reasons the proposal would compete with the modest bungalow at No 51, and on this basis the proposal would not protect the character or setting of the existing buildings in the ASC, as advised in the SPD. It would also not meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which although supportive of the efficient use of land, also expects well-designed places.

The appeal site is not subject to heritage constraints, however the proposal would result in a small but nevertheless harmful dilution of the ASC, designated for its positive townscape environment. There are no objections to the proposal, but this is not a reason, in itself, to allow harmful development. It is suggested that an outbuilding of up to 50% of the site could be constructed under permitted development, and this is a fallback position. However, no further details are before me and without such information a full and detailed comparison with the appeal scheme cannot be made. It is also not possible to ascertain if it would be a realistic or probable alternative and if prior approval would be given. Consequently, the suggested fallback position has limited weight in the determination of the appeal.

Drawing the above together, while the proposal’s siting would respect the prevailing pattern of development, its scale and design would not sit comfortably within its surroundings, to the detriment of the ASC and contrary to the provisions of the design guidance in the SPD. The SPD was updated in 2022 and there is no clear evidence that in seeking to protect the character and appearance of the area it is at odds with the Framework, such that it should be considered to be out of date. In any event, there is no suggestion that development plan policy MSGP23 is similarly out of date.

To conclude on this main issue, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the ASC and would be in conflict with LPD policies MSGP23 and MSGP24. Amongst other things these policies require development to maintain or enhance the character of the ASC townscape environment through a site specific design response, taking account of relationships to existing scale, height, massing, proportions, form and detailing.

The shared access with No 51 would not be unduly narrow, and I concur with the Council that owing to the low number of trips the proposal would not increase the potential for conflict. On refuse collection day the visibility splays may partially be obscured by wheelie bins, however this is not an uncommon arrangement on [address] and I have not been presented with any clear evidence that this would unacceptably affect highway safety. The appellant has confirmed that pedestrian access for No 51 would remain as existing, albeit utilising the shared access, and there would be no effect on the parking provision at No 51. The limited number of trips by all users on the shared access would not make this arrangement inherently unsafe for pedestrians and highway safety would be acceptable, in line with the provisions of the Framework.

A generous area of hardstanding is shown on the plans adjacent to the proposed garage. There is no substantiated evidence that there would not be sufficient space for a vehicle to manoeuvre in this area so that they could exit the site in a forward gear. In any event, vehicle tracking information to show how access and egress in a forward gear could be achieved could be secured through the imposition of a planning condition.

To conclude, the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on highway safety and would be in accordance with LPD Policy MSGP15 which includes a requirement for development to secure safe access to the site for all people.

The proposal would include the use of permeable paving which the Council do not dispute is an appropriate sustainable drainage technique for this type of proposal. The proposal does not fall within the Framework’s definition of major development, and there is no clear evidence that the appeal site is in a critical drainage area or that an appropriate surface water drainage scheme could not be achieved at the site. This matter could therefore be addressed through the imposition of an appropriately worded planning condition which would ensure that sustainable drainage systems to control flow rates and reduce volumes of runoff which are proportionate to the nature and scale of the proposal are delivered.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on surface water drainage and would be in accordance with the provisions of the Framework insofar as it requires proposals to incorporate sustainable drainage systems that have multifunctional benefits.

There is considerable support for boosting the supply of housing and based on the Council’s most recent housing delivery test (HDT) results there is a shortfall in delivery of housing. However, there is no clear evidence that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, nor does the HDT indicate that the delivery of housing was substantially below (less than 75% of) the housing requirement over the previous three years. As such, the Framework’s presumption in favour of sustainable development is not applicable in this case.

Nevertheless, the proposal would contribute one family sized dwelling to the supply of housing in an accessible location, on a small windfall site that the Framework recognises are often built out relatively quickly. Considering the scale of the proposal this benefit attracts limited positive weight. It is not clear that the proposal would be for self-build housing as the application form has boxes ticked to indicate both self-build and market housing. In any event, there is no mechanism to secure the proposal as self-build housing. Consequently, this matter attracts very limited positive weight.

There are also likely to be modest, time-limited employment benefits from the construction stage and some limited economic benefits arising from expenditure by future occupiers, although there is limited guarantee of the extent to which this would be directed to local businesses or services. These benefits attract limited positive weight.

The proposal is said to allow for multigenerational living arrangements at the proposed dwelling and No 51, to allow care for relatives in the future and I have carefully considered the appellant’s particular circumstances. While this would contribute to the objectives of the Framework that seek to support strong, vibrant and sustainable communities in this case this is a largely private matter and the precise extent of the benefit has not been clearly identified and so attracts limited positive weight. The proposal would not be harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, however this matter, and any other development plan policy compliance including biodiversity gains from hedgerow planting are neutral factors, weighing neither for nor against the proposal.

The creation of high-quality places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve and as explained above, that would not be the case for the appeal scheme. Significant negative weight is given to the conflict with LPD policies MSGP23 and MSGP24.

The proposal would result in benefits, but it would also cause harm. Weighing the two up is not a mathematical outcome, but a planning judgement. Overall, the above considerations are insufficient to outweigh the harm and conflict with the

The proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on highway safety or surface water drainage. However, my above findings in relation to character and appearance brings the proposal into conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.