Appeal 6002054

The appeal is dismissed.

In the banner heading above, I have taken the description of the development from the appellants’ appeal form, and the Council’s decision notice, which I consider to accurately describe the development proposed.

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

The host property is a semi-detached house located within an established residential area. Given this established character, a number of properties in the area have been extended and altered. The type and design of these vary, as do their quality. Like its neighbours, the host property’s main roof, above first-floor level, adopts a pitched roof design.

Policy DM6.1 of the North Tyneside Local Plan (2017) (the LP) concerns the design of development. In summary, and amongst other matters, it requires developments to demonstrate high and consistent design standards, it requires designs to be based on a clear analysis of the characteristics of the site and the wider area, and it requires designs to be responsive to existing buildings.

LP Policy DM6.2 relates to extensions to existing buildings. The Policy requires extensions to complement the form and character of the original building, whilst setting out that their scale, height, mass and position should emphasise a subservience to the main building. The Policy also states that, when assessing developments, the effects of extensions on the existing property and whether it enhances the overall design will be considered, as will contextual factors such as its location in relation to the street scene and the design of existing buildings in the area.

Therefore, these [name] place a requirement on developments to exhibit a high-quality design, complementary to their context. This is reflective of policy within the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure that development is visually attractive, as a result of good architecture, and sympathetic to local character, whilst it advises that development that is not well designed should be refused.

Furthermore, [name] Planning Document (2018) (the SPD) provides additional design direction that complements the LP and helps ensure development achieves a high standard. The SPD advises on a range of development types. This includes residential extensions, which it outlines should remain ancillary or subservient to the original building and be complementary to the form and character of the original building. The SPD contains some specific guidance in respect of dormer windows too, including that they should always appear visually subordinate, avoid a top-heavy design, and retain the majority of the original roof shape.

It is clear from the evidence before me, including the reason for refusal, that it is the rear dormer to which the Council object. The Council do not contend that the other extensions and alterations proposed harm the character or appearance of the host property or area. I have no reason to disagree.

Although it would be set in from both sides of the dwelling’s roof, set up from the eaves, and be set down from the roof ridge, the dormer would nevertheless be of considerable scale, spanning most of the width of the property’s extended rear roof slope. Incorporating a flat roof, the dormer’s roof form would be at odds with, rather than reflective of, or complimentary toward, the pitched roof it would extend. Due to this scale and design, the development would result in the addition of a large box-like mass to the rear roofscape, with visible elements of the remains of the rear roof slope limited to just margins around it. Consequently, the adopted design fails to emphasise subservience, is unsympathetic, and the dormer would dominate the rear roof slope.

The dormer would not be as prominent in views from roads and pavements as would be the case if it had been proposed to the front. Even so, the dormer would be partly visible from sections of [address] and [address], whereupon its box-like appearance would be apparent to passers-by. Therefore, it would affect the street scene. Furthermore, it would also be visible from neighbouring properties. Moreover, for the reasons I have given, it would represent an unbefitting addition to the host property and amount to poor design.

In reaching these views, I have had regard to other nearby developments, and to those further afield within [name], which involve dormers and which have been drawn to my attention in evidence. In some instances, the design of the dormers in the cited cases differ quite considerably from the proposal before me: No [address] especially, which entails two, separate, pitched-roofed dormers, and No [address], where two box-like dormers were proposed, not one. The effects of these dormers are therefore not wholly comparable with those of the appeal scheme.

Moreover, although for most of the other cited cases I have the plans and decision notices, I do not have the full details of the cases, including any associated reports which set out the reasons behind the Council granting the planning permissions. As a result, it is not at all clear to me that the contexts in which those developments obtained planning permission are comparable with the circumstances which apply in the case before me. Planning decisions are heavily dependent on the case-specific evidence and circumstances. I have come to my own views on this appeal having regard to the evidence before me now, my own experience and the particular circumstances of the case. For these reasons, whilst I have had regard to them, none of the cited developments are a strong influence on my decision or persuade me that the proposal is acceptable.

For the reasons given above, the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the area would be unacceptably harmful. Consequently, the development conflicts with the aforementioned [name] DM6.1 and DM6.2, as well as the design guidance of the SPD.

The appellant refers to permitted development rights - that a dormer could be constructed at the property by exercising those rights, and that other properties in the area will have done so too. However, no detailed alternative proposal, demonstrating the type of dormer which could be erected utilising permitted development rights, has been submitted. The design of the dormer included in the appeal proposal is reliant upon other extension work being carried out. It is not at all clear to me that a dormer could be undertaken utilising permitted development rights which would have a scale or design very comparable to that of the appeal proposal. Nor, in turn, would it result in effects on the character or appearance of the host property or area which would be the same. Consequently, in the circumstances, the prospect of the exercise of permitted development rights to erect a dormer at the host property is not a fallback position which weighs in favour of the appeal proposal.

The appellant contends that the Council would accept a smaller dormer. No compelling evidence is before me which demonstrates to me that this is the case. Regardless, a smaller dormer has not been proposed and, had it been, it would not result in equivalent effects. Again, therefore, the prospect that a smaller dormer may be acceptable to the Council does not justify the appeal proposal.

I note that objections to the development have not been received from neighbouring occupiers. However, the absence of such objections does not in itself render the scheme appropriate nor overcome the concerns and development plan policy conflict I have referred to in my main issue.

I acknowledge that the development would enlarge the property and provide improved and more energy efficiency accommodation within it suitable for a growing family. These beneficial effects of the development are matters I have had regard to. I have done so with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which affords the right to respect for private and family life and home and, the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010 and the relevant protected characteristics set out therein, which includes age, borne in mind. However, in my main issue, I have identified harmful effects would arise from the development’s particular design, and it has not been demonstrated that the proposal is the only means to achieve accommodation improvements. I am satisfied that avoiding unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the area can only be adequately addressed by dismissal of the appeal. Any interference with the rights of the occupants or effects upon those with protected characteristics is necessary and proportionate in this case. Overall, the benefits of the development do not outweigh its harmful effects.

The development conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.