Appeal 6005500

The appeal is dismissed.

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 neighbouring properties to the north with regard to light, privacy and outlook.

The appeal property is a second floor flat within a mid-terraced property of red brick (No 43). It is accessed at the second floor via an external staircase to the side of the existing rear two-storey offshoot. There is a small rear yard enclosed by a brick wall of approximately 2 metres in height. No 43A is situated on the ground floor, and No 45 adjoins the property at the end of the terrace adjacent to [address].

The rear of No 43 is not visible from [address], but it can clearly be seen from public vantage points on [address].

The proposal would not project further than the existing rear building line, using the original footprint of the offshoot and would remain below the ridge line of the host dwelling. However, at the increased height, due to the box-like form with flat roof and differing materials and fenestration detail to the original dwelling, it would appear incongruous and discordant within the street scene when viewed from [address].

It is acknowledged that to the rear of the terrace there are offshoots of varying roof heights, profiles and form. Within the wider area there are some examples of dormer extensions above two-storey offshoots. However, from my observations on site, these are not a predominant feature of the character of the wider surrounding area, which includes a more regular pattern of original rear offshoots.

Despite the immediate context at the rear of the terrace, the introduction of a further incongruous development would cause harm by eroding the identified, established character and appearance of the area.

Thus, the appeal proposal would not respond positively to the scale and form of surrounding development. 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 (LP) (2017).

Due to the orientation of the dwellings, there is already a level of overlooking from the existing second floor window on the side of the offshoot. However, at increased height, the proposed side facing window of the development would give rise to direct overlooking into the rear windows of No 45.

I do not consider obscure glazing would be an acceptable solution to overcoming the loss of privacy caused by this unacceptable relationship. Even if sufficient light could penetrate the obscure glass into the bedroom, it would not prevent the window from being opened to enable direct overlooking. It would be unreasonable to require an obscure glazed and non-opening bedroom window by condition, as it would have an unacceptable negative effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 43.

The level of light within the rear yard areas and to the rear windows of Nos 43A and 45 is already compromised by the existing level of overshadowing caused by the orientation of the terrace. Due to the increase in height, the development would increase overshadowing in the summer, but overall, not to a material extent. Thus, there would be no unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to loss of light.

The outlook from the rear windows of Nos 43A and 45 is already limited and as the development would project no further into the yard than the existing, I do not consider the development would cause harm to the neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions in terms of outlook.

Consequently, the appeal proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 45 with regard to loss of privacy and would conflict with Policies DM6.1(b) and DM6.2(c) of the LP.

The appellant cites other benefits associated with the appeal proposal including additional living space and continuing contribution to the local community. These purported benefits collectively attract limited weight given the scale of the development and so they do not overcome the identified harm.

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.