Appeal 6004766

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal property (No. 2) is a small-scale mid-terraced property. Adjoining to the south is a bungalow (No. 1) and adjoining to the north, is a two-storey dwelling (No. 3), set back from the front elevation of No. 2. The properties are highly visible within the [address] street scene and from the A193 ([address]), close to the junction with [address]. Adjacent to the rear boundary is a private car parking area and a public house, at a lower ground level. The rear of the terrace of properties can be readily seen in its elevated position when viewed from [address]. The terrace displays a variety of styles but there are no other dormers and this is therefore a distinctive feature of the immediate area.

The development would not increase the footprint of No. 2 or alter the existing building line. However, it would significantly transform its appearance. Due to the small scale of the existing property, notwithstanding the use of appropriate materials and fenestration in the proposal, the size and height of the proposed dormers which would exceed the ridgeline of the host property, would appear top heavy and be a bulky and incongruous addition that would relate poorly to the appearance of the host property.

The proposal would not create a visually subservient addition to the property and thus it would be at odds with the Design Quality Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2018) (SPD) that says development should reflect the scale, massing and roof form of surrounding buildings where they are a positive attribute to the area’s character. The proposed increase in height and radical change in appearance would disrupt the roofscape of the existing terrace of dwellings so that the development would appear incongruous in the immediate street scene.

I note the existence of other dormer windows in the wider area as referred to by the appellant. However, none of these are set within a similar context to the appeal proposal so as to set an irresistible precedent or to justify the unsympathetic appearance of the development within the terrace.

Thus, the appeal proposal would not respond positively to the scale and form of surrounding development within its immediate context. It would therefore harm the identified character and appearance of the area contrary to Policies DM6.1 and DM6.2 of the North Tyneside Local Plan (2017) (LP), which seek high design standards appropriate to the context.

The appellant cites other benefits associated with the appeal proposal including additional living space and enhanced performance and longevity of the dwelling. These purported benefits collectively attract limited weight given the scale of the development and so they do not overcome the identified harm.

Although the appellant suggests minor adjustments could be made to the scheme, this appeal could not be used to evolve a design, and I must consider the appeal on the basis of the submitted drawings.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.