Appeal 6005598

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site is a parcel of grassed land at the pavement edge of [address] within a residential area. Grass verges of varying sizes are a feature of the area which contributes to an open character with a landscape quality. The open, verdant parcels of land create a clear sense of balance between built form and open space, contributing positively to the character and appearance of the area.

Along with the other grass verges in the surrounding area the appeal site provides a visual break from the built form. While the proposed boundary treatment would have some set back from the pavement it would almost fully enclose the site to facilitate the change of use. Fences are not an uncommon feature however at the appeal site it would be a visually discordant element in an otherwise open area. The existing tall, unmanaged hedge is set further back from the pavement edge and so does not enclose the appeal site or diminish the visual quality of the site in the same way the proposal would in views from [address].

It is not disputed that the land is not designated open space or required to meet open space needs and a section of the wider grass verge would remain. Nevertheless, the appeal site forms part of the original planned layout of the area and makes a positive contribution to visual amenity and to the quality of life of local residents, some of whom have valued the contribution the site makes to the character and appearance of the area since the estate was first constructed. The visual intrusion of the proposed change of use would be experienced by the occupiers of nearby dwellings and local residents as they move between streets. Furthermore, the retention of the tree at the site and the positive contribution this makes to the area’s verdant character would not mitigate the harm that would be caused to the design quality of the area.

There are several undated photos showing the appeal site being used for unauthorised parking which appears to have had eroded the grass and several local residents have commented that informal parking takes place. However, I did not find this to be the case at my site visit when I observed the verge to be well maintained, notwithstanding that this was only a snapshot in time. In any event, I am mindful that the appeal scheme would result in the permanent change of use of the site. Notwithstanding the narrow focus of the submitted photos, the informal parking appears to be largely completely off the carriage way and on the grass verge so it is not clear how this would have an unacceptable effect on the safe movement of vehicles, including emergency vehicles, or pedestrians.

My attention has been drawn to a previous permission at the site for the change of use to private garden1. [name] do not have clear details about this permission it was determined some time ago, under a different policy context. Anyhow, I have come to my own view, based on the planning merits of the scheme before me.

To conclude, the proposal would be unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and would be in conflict with Policy CS15 of the Planning for the [name] and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne 2010-2030 (2015) and Policy MSGP24 of the [name] for Growing Places Local Plan Document for Gateshead (2021). Amongst other things, these policies require that development contributes to good place-making through high quality design that responds positively to local distinctiveness and is compatible with local character.

There are no concerns regarding the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, however this, and any other policy compliance including biodiversity, would be a neutral factor weighing neither for nor against the proposal. The proposal would provide additional, functional outdoor amenity space however this is a largely private matter. While there is some support for the proposal from interested parties, this is not a reason in itself to allow harmful development.

My above findings bring the proposal into conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.