Appeal 6007920

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the streetscene; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of the host property and No. [address], with particular regard to privacy.

The appeal property has been subdivided from the rear of No. [address], and is now a two storey dwelling sited hard up against the pavements to its side and rear. The existing pattern of terrace development along the rear lane is generally two storey outriggers and flat roofed single storey offshoots. Some of these two storey projections contain rear dormers, but they are not a dominant characteristic.

There is no dispute over the proposed new ground floor window to the east. The proposal would also provide two new dormers in the eastern roof plane, and a dormer in the western roof plane approximately double the length of that which already exists.

The appellant describes the dwelling as a ‘peculiar, odd-shaped property’, with irregular roof angles which make it a unique structure in this regularised terraced setting. This uniqueness is suggested as justifying the dormers. However, the extent of additional angles and rectangular interruption to the roof planes would overwhelm this unique character. The roof would thus become disjointed and unduly obtrusive and bulky in its prominent corner position.

Despite being above eye-level, and the dormers simply designed, this impact would be noticeable from the public realm. There would be harm to the existing, more uniform character of the surrounding terraces. This is the case even though the property is not near to any listed buildings or in a Conservation Area.

While it is suggested that a larger dormer on the eastern elevation could be constructed under permitted development rights, I have to assess the proposal before me as a whole, and there is no evidence before me to indicate that the two smaller dormers would be permitted development.

The proposal would therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the streetscene, and would conflict with Policy CS15 of the [name] and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and [site address] 2010-2030 (CS), and Policies DM20 and DM23 of the [site address] Development and Allocations Plan 2015-2030 (DAP). Together and amongst other matters, those require development to deliver high quality design and contribute to good place-making and a high quality environment, and to respond positively to local distinctiveness and character.

The new eastern elevation dormers would have no unacceptable impact on the privacy of neighbouring occupiers. However, there is already close range overlooking between the western dormer of No. 97a and a rear first floor window of No. 97, and overlooking of the No. 97 external amenity area from the dormer. Its extension in length would therefore increase the extent of this overlooking, and have a harmful effect on privacy. The lack of interested party objections does not indicate a lack of harm.

The appellant suggests the imposition of a condition for this dormer to be obscure glazed. While this would improve the existing position as regards privacy, there is no information before me as to the resulting impact upon outlook for occupants, which may itself therefore cause harm. To be effective, obscure glazing also generally involves windows being non-opening, and I cannot reasonably impose such a condition without an understanding of any fire safety or other internal amenity implications.

The proposal’s impact on privacy would therefore have a harmful effect on living conditions, and would conflict with the DAP Policy DM23, whereby development which would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the residential amenity of existing or future occupants will not be allowed. It would also conflict with Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework ('the Framework') (2024), which requires developments to have a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The proposal would provide additional space and headroom, which would increase the property’s internal residential amenity. This would make a more efficient use of land, as supported by the DAP Policy DM20 and the Framework paragraph 124. However, the proposal would provide only very limited additional space, with no demonstration that the current conditions are inadequate. As such, I find this benefit to only be of very minimal weight.

There is also no compelling evidence before me that the proposal would address any shortfalls in accommodation and lower prices as suggested. The aims of the [name] CS9 and CS11 of maintaining a range of housing types and sizes and promoting a good range and choice of housing, would therefore apply both to the existing dwelling and to its slightly larger size under the appeal proposal.

The development would conflict with the development plan as a whole. With no other material considerations indicating that a decision should be made otherwise, for the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.