Appeal 6004987

The appeal is dismissed.

I have considered the development on the basis of the following description shown on the Council’s Notice of Decision as it provides a more accurate description: ‘Erection of full length rear dormer, the increase in height and width to the southern off-shoot of the rear elevation and the removal of a window to the first floor’. I have omitted the words ‘(all elements retrospective)’ as these do not describe development.

On site I observed that the appeal development has already been carried out.

The appellant has proposed alternative design drawings. The appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, particularly where it would deprive those who should have been consulted on the changed development the opportunity of such consultation. Therefore, in the interests of fairness and transparency to all parties, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans considered by the Council, namely A-3709-00A and A-3709-11C.

The Council’s Notice of Decision refers to Policy CS13. This appears to be a typing error and should read CS15.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No 17) with regard to outlook and light.

The appeal property (Nos 9-15) is a mid-terrace dwellinghouse. The property originally comprised 4 Tyneside flats. The external front elevation remains unaltered by the appeal development, maintaining the uniformity of the terrace frontage along [address]. This uniformity is a recognised feature of the Bensham and Saltwell Area of Special Character (ASC) within which the appeal property is situated.

At the rear, the terrace of properties features a strong rhythm of paired or single two storey offshoots with pitched roofs and staircases leading to small yards. There are a range of no, low or tall walls and gates opening onto the rear service lane.

Nos 9-15 has an existing single storey rear extension. There is an existing paired two storey offshoot to the north (shared between Nos 9-11 and 5-7). The original single two storey rear offshoot to the south (serving Nos 13-15) has been increased in height and width so that it now impinges on a rear first floor window. There is a full length dormer to the rear.

The appeal development comprises the southern single two storey offshoot, the rear dormer and the removal of the first floor window.

The original southern rear offshoot was designed to serve only one pair of Tyneside flats and consequently was narrower and smaller in scale than the other rear offshoots that were designed to serve four flats. At the original scale, the offshoot maintained the pleasing symmetry of rear first floor windows evident along the rear of the terrace. The enlarged offshoot disrupts this symmetry and spoils the uniform character of the terrace at rear first floor level. The existing rear single storey extension does not prevent views of the first floor windows from the rear of the property.

The rear dormer, by virtue of its scale and bulk appears incongruous within the street scene when viewed from [address] and from along the rear service lane between the [address] and [address] properties. It is particularly prominent as there are no similar dormers at that scale within the rear roofscape of the terrace.

I also note there are other properties in the area that have been extended and altered 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 development does not respond positively to the scale and form of surrounding development within its context. It would therefore harm the identified character and appearance of the area contrary to Policy CS15 of the [name] and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne (CS) (2015) and Policies MSGP23 and MSGP24 of the Local Plan Document for Gateshead – [name] for [name] (LP) (2021).

The level of light enjoyed by the occupiers of No 17 was already compromised to an extent by the orientation of No 17 with the original southern offshoot at Nos 9-

I do not find that the increased height of the appeal development causes any further harm by way of loss of light to that already experienced.

The appeal development increases the height and width of the southern offshoot but decreases the length. The dormer windows do not extend beyond the original rear elevation of Nos 9-15. I therefore do not find that the appeal development increases the existing level of tunnelling effect or undue sense of overbearing that already existed for the occupiers of No 17. In terms of the effect on their outlook, I find the appeal development does not worsen the situation that existed prior to the appeal development taking place.

Consequently, the appeal development would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 17 with regard to outlook and light. In this respect the appeal development complies with Policy CS14 of the CS and Policy MSGP17 of the LP.

Support for the proposal is acknowledged. However, this does not overcome the identified harm that would be caused by the appeal development.

While it is suggested that the dormer extensions could be constructed under permitted development rights, there is no lawful development certificate before me for such a proposal. Furthermore, there is no compelling evidence before me that the proposal in its entirety would be permitted development. I therefore give this argument limited weight in my decision.

It is also suggested that in the future other property owners may construct dormer windows to the rear at [address]. Again, there is no compelling evidence to support this assertion, thus I afford it very limited weight in my decision.

The appellant cites other benefits associated with the appeal proposal including additional living space and the ability for a multi-generational family to live together. These purported benefits collectively attract limited weight given the scale of the development and so they do not overcome the identified harm.

It is acknowledged that the property is not listed or in a Conservation Area, nevertheless, development plan policies relating to character and appearance and living conditions remain applicable.

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.