Appeal 6003407

The appeal is dismissed.

Amended plans were considered by the Council prior to the determination of the planning application which revised the proposed design from a gable to a half-hipped roof, I have considered the appeal on the basis of the amended plans as this is what the Council based its assessment on.

The Council changed the description of development from that referenced in the application form. I note that the appellant also uses this on the appeal submission, in the interests of clarity I have adopted the revised description of development.

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

The appeal site is semi-detached two-storey property situated within a predominantly residential area. The area is characterised with bungalows, detached and semi-detached red brick properties, many properties have been altered or extended. Notwithstanding this the appeal site and the surrounding properties share features such as hipped roof, adjoining garages and projecting two-storey curved bay windows, there is a uniformity in terms of the design.

The Design Quality, Supplementary Planning Document (2018) (the SPD) provides guidance on the design of residential side extensions. It advises that where alterations affect the front elevation of a dwelling, a side extension should remain subordinate to the original building, reflect the character of the surrounding area, and avoid eroding the visual separation between properties. This can be achieved, amongst other measures, by setting the extension back from the principal elevation and by employing a reduced ridge height.

In this case, whilst the width of the proposed side extension could be subordinate to the host dwelling, in the absence of any meaningful set-back from the front elevation, combined with the use of a half-hipped roof form, the proposed development would result in a visually prominent addition that would read as an unbroken continuation of the original house. As such, the extension would fail to appear subordinate.

The inclusion of a half-hipped roof is not a common feature in the area which would be incongruous to the host property eroding symmetry of the semi-detached pair and immediate streetscene where hipped roof form is a predominant shared feature.

Although reference is made to historic side extensions elsewhere in the area, some of which are comparable to the proposal before me, I have not been provided with substantive evidence to confirm these were approved using the same planning polciies and SPD. Even so, these do not outweigh the guidance in the SPD or justify a departure from it in this instance. Each proposal must be assessed on its own design merits, and I find that the proposed development would not achieve the degree of subservience required to safeguard the character and appearance of the dwelling and its surroundings.

The Council do not raise concerns with regard to the canopy nor the rear single storey extension from the information before me and my observations on my site visit I do not disagree. However, these elements are not severable both physically and functionally from the proposed first floor side extension.

I find that the development would add an unsympathetic addition to the appeal site which would harm the character and appearance of the host property and area in general. There is conflict with Policies DM6.1 and DM6.2 of the North Tyneside Local Plan (2017) which amongst other things seek that developments are of high quality and that extensions should emphasis subservience to the host property.

The appellant requested that the original plans submitted to the Council which detailed a gable end would be their preferred scheme, as outlined above I have assessed the merits of the scheme on the basis of the amended plans as that is what the Council based their refusal on. Notwithstanding this I have had the opportunity to view the original plans, and the gable design would not alter my

For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.