Appeal 6006884

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the front dormer windows on the character and appearance of the host property and the street scene.

The appeal property is a mid-terrace Victorian dwelling within a predominantly residential street characterised by a strong rhythm of consistent form, proportions, detailing and materials. Although some front dormers add variation within the roofscape, these are generally modest in scale, narrow in width, and typically limited to a single dormer per property. As a result, they tend to sit comfortably within the roof slope and do not appear cluttered or visually dominant.

The proposal would introduce two dormers of unequal width across the front roof slope. While their alignment, pitched roofs and materials would reflect those of the host dwelling, this would not be sufficient to overcome concerns relating to their overall scale and configuration. When taken together, their combined width, depth and massing would materially alter the roof profile and erode the balanced and coherent appearance of the terrace. Consequently, the dormers would appear as assertive and visually dominant additions rather than as subservient features.

From my site visit, I observed that the front roofscape is readily discernible in views along [address] and when emerging from [address]. In these public views, the proposed dormers would be clearly perceptible and would detract from the prevailing character and appearance of the street scene.

The replacement of existing rooflights does not reduce the visual impact of the proposal. Rooflights are recessive and lightweight features that are largely read as part of the roof plane, whereas dormer windows introduce additional bulk and vertical emphasis. The substitution of rooflights with two dormers would therefore represent a notable increase in visual impact rather than a continuation of an established situation.

Although the property does not lie within a conservation area, this does not diminish the importance of achieving good design. Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) applies universally and requires development to be visually attractive and sympathetic to local character. Paragraph 139 is clear that permission should be refused for development of poor design, taking account of local design guidance. The absence of a heritage designation does not justify development which would harm the established character of its surroundings.

While the Framework encourages the efficient use of land and supports upward extensions in principle, it does not do so at the expense of good design. In this case, the evidence indicates that the proposal would provide only limited additional usable space, with modest private benefits and minimal wider public benefit. These benefits do not outweigh the identified harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding streetscene.

The Council’s Householder Design Guide advises that front dormers should be proportionate and reflect the traditional style and architectural character of the host dwelling. In this instance, the proposal would not reflect the established proportions evident along [address] and would therefore conflict with the aims of that guidance.

Overall, I find that the scale, siting and combined presence of the two front dormers would result in incongruous additions that would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the wider streetscene. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies CS15 of the [name] and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and [site address] (2015), and Policies DM20 and DM23 of the [site address] Development and Allocations Plan (2020), insofar as they seek high quality, contextually responsive design.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole, and there are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.