Appeal 6003381

The appeal is dismissed.

The dormer referenced in the description of the development is built. Therefore, I have determined this element of the development on a retrospective basis although, in the banner heading above, I have omitted the retrospective reference since this is not an act of development. Furthermore, I noted during my visit that not all of the property’s fenestration matched the existing, as-built or proposed plans. For example, within the east-facing elevation, there is a set of French doors not depicted on the plans. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans submitted.

Two design guide documents are before me. One is entitled ‘[name] for [name] and Alteration in [site address] ’. It dates from 2023 and is identified as being a consultation draft version (the 2023 [name]). The Council have confirmed that the 2023 [name] is not yet adopted and forms part of an emerging review of the Council’s design guidance. The second is entitled ‘[name] [name], it was originally adopted in 2001 but was subsequently updated in 2011 (the 2011 [name]).

Since only the 2011 [name] is adopted, I attribute more weight to it than the 2023 [name]. As necessary, I refer to the 2011 [name] later in my

The main issues are: • The effects of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the area; and • Whether the development complies with relevant development plan policy concerning enhanced accessibility and adaptability in specialist residential developments.

Prior to the dormer’s construction, and as depicted by the existing plans, the host property was a bungalow with a single floor of accommodation. It was served by pitched front and rear roof slopes which, owing to the absence of any roof windows, resulted in an uncomplex and unobtrusive roofscape.

Although the local area includes the likes of a shopping parade and some surgeries, it is predominately residential in character. Many residential properties in the area are also bungalows and, whilst some have been altered or extended, large flat-roofed dormers are not prevalent features.

Policy CS15 of the [name] and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and [site address] 2010-2030 (2015) (the CS) requires high quality design and requires developments to respond positively to local distinctiveness and character. Policy DM20 of the [site address] Development and Allocations Plan 2015- 2030 (2020) (the DaAP) also requires high quality design, and it advocates the efficient use of land but where account is had to the character of an area. Policy DM20 also sets out that opportunities to improve the character and quality of an area should be secured.

Furthermore, amongst other matters, the 2011 [name] provides guidance on dormers, setting out that rear dormers should be designed to appear subservient and in proportion with the overall size of the roof slope, whilst also advocating that, in most instances, pitched‐roof dormers will be appropriate, reflecting the character of the host property.

Therefore, these development plan policies and the [address] 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 (the 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.

The constructed dormer is of considerable scale, concealing from view most of the remnants of the property’s rear roof slope. Incorporating a flat roof, the dormer’s roof form is at odds with, rather than reflective of, or complimentary toward, the pitched roof it has extended. Due to this scale and design, the dormer results in the addition of a large box-like mass to the rear roofscape. Consequently, the adopted design of the dormer is not subservient, rather, it is disproportionate, unsympathetic, and it dominates the rear roof slope. Furthermore, since the host property is positioned on a corner plot, the dormer is clearly visible, and it forms a prominent feature in views from both [address] and [address].

Therefore, because of the dormer component, the development results in unacceptably harmful effects on the character and appearance of the host property and the area. Consequently, the development conflicts with Policy CS15 of the CS, Policy DM20 of the DaAP, the guidance of the 2011 [name] and content within the Framework.

Local planning authorities have the option to set additional technical requirements exceeding the minimum standards required by Building Regulations in respect of access and adaptability, and it forms part of the wider, rationalised system of optional national technical housing standards which emerged in 2015. In order for these additional technical standards to apply to a development, an adopted development plan policy needs to be in place requiring adherence to them. Such adopted policies are required to be evidence-based, thereby justifying the application of the additional technical standards.

The DaAP includes Policy DM8 concerning specialist residential accommodation and, amongst other matters, it requires all specialist residential accommodation to be designed to the Accessible and [name] (Building Regulation M4(2)) and/or [name] (Building Regulation M4(3)). When read in conjunction with its supporting text, Policy DM8 is clear that specialist residential accommodation includes housing where care is provided within Use Class C2.

This means that Policy DM8 requires all Use Class C2 developments meet the enhanced accessibility and adaptability provisions of M4(2) or M4(3). It does not provide for exceptions, be that because a development involves a conversion of an older property or because the prospective occupiers are expected to be young and thereby not have mobility issues. The development has not been designed to comply with these enhanced accessibility and adaptability standards.

In some circumstances it is appropriate to utilise planning conditions to facilitate more minor modifications to plans. However, in this case, I have no cogent evidence to demonstrate that adapting the host property to meet Policy DM8’s enhanced accessibility and adaptability requirements would be straightforward. Therefore, in this appeal, I am not satisfied that it would be appropriate to defer the matter and rely upon the imposition of a condition to secure a design compliant with the necessary enhanced accessibility and adaptability standards.

In forming these views, I recognise that many children’s care homes in the UK operate from converted dwellings and may not incorporate accessibility adaptations. Nevertheless, Policy DM8 is an adopted policy in Newcastle, I have no substantive evidence to indicate that its requirements are not evidence‐based, and it is engaged in this case. As such, that enhanced accessibility and adaptability may not be required elsewhere does not provide a justification for accepting the development’s shortcomings in this regard.

In addition, I note the appellants’ submissions that assessments would be made to ensure that the property’s standard of accommodation would suit the children to be housed within it. However, I have limited evidence on what these processes would entail or how they would be secured and, moreover, they would not address what Policy DM8 seeks to achieve: the provision of high-quality specialist housing which embeds enhanced accessibility and adaptability.

For the reasons given, the development conflicts with DaAP Policy DM8 and thereby fails to comply with relevant development plan policy concerning enhanced accessibility and adaptability in specialist residential developments.

The development would deliver accommodation for vulnerable young people, providing them with care. A benefit would be derived from the development’s contribution toward this particular type of housing need and, in these regards, the development would assist in achieving healthy, safe and inclusive places. Furthermore, I have had due regard to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (the HRA) which affords the right to respect for private and family life and home and, where those rights apply to a child, their best interests are a primary consideration. I have also had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (the PSED) under the Equality Act 2010 and the relevant protected characteristics set out therein which includes age and disability.

In dismissing the appeal, a care home for children will not be provided at the site. However, it does not follow from the HRA or the PSED that the appeal should succeed. In my main issues I have identified harmful effects and planning policy conflicts. Furthermore, in not providing enhanced accessibility and adaptability measures, the development would not deliver specialist housing of sufficient quality, failing to cater adequately for those with disabilities – a sector of the community which the PSED in part seeks to advance equality of opportunity. For these reasons, in dismissing the appeal, I am satisfied that any extent of interference with the aforementioned rights and protected characteristics would be for legitimate and well-established planning policy reasons given the harms and policy conflicts I have identified. Consequently, it is appropriate and proportionate to dismiss the appeal.

Some economic benefits would be derived from the development, including through employment generation. However, these would be modest and would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm and policy conflicts I have described in my main issues.

[name] have been furnished with no detailed plans demonstrating its design, by utilising permitted development rights, a dormer could be constructed on the property’s rear roof slope with a maximum volume of 50m3. It seems a real prospect to me that the constructed dormer could be replaced/adapted to comply with the permitted development right provisions for roof additions.

However, the dormer as constructed is larger than 50m3. Evidence before me indicates that it is around 573m to 58m3. In my first main issue, I found that the constructed dormer results in harmful effects on the character and appearance of the host property and the area, its considerable scale being a contributory factor. A dormer constituting permitted development would not be much smaller and would be loosely comparable to that constructed. Nevertheless, it would result in a dormer of reduced scale and likely assist in limiting its roofscape dominance in comparison to the constructed dormer.

In both my main issues I have identified development plan policy conflicts arising from the development’s design. That a dormer could be constructed utilising permitted development rights which would result in effects similar, but a little less harmful, does not provide a fallback position of sufficient weight to override the planning policy conflict.

It may be, in respect of a range of other planning considerations, that the development would not result in harmful effects. This may include amongst them the effects of the development on parking stress and flood risks. However, the absence of harm in these and other regards is of neutral consequence.

An appeal decision relating to another children’s care home proposal at [address], Newcastle is before me1. Matters surrounding enhanced accessibility and adaptability and how the proposal fared against DaAP Policy DM8 were key considerations for the Inspector. In these respects, their conclusions in that case correspond closely with the conclusions I have reached. However, unlike the case before me, the Inspector also identified that internal living space and external amenity space was deficient. Regardless, appeal 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.

Finally, I note the appellants’ submissions that the dormer was constructed by a previous landowner. However, this has very little bearing on the planning merits of the case which my decision must be founded upon.

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.