Construction of new 1st floor extension over existing garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 April 2018 by Graeme Robbie BA(Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M4510/D/18/3197708 7 Benwell Grange Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE15 6RN  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Wright against the decision of Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council.  The application Ref 2017/1887/01/DET, dated 20 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 12 February 2018.  The development proposed is construction of new 1st floor extension over existing garage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of new 1st floor extension over existing garage at 7 Benwell Grange Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE15 6RN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2017/1887/01/DET, dated 20 November 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: site plan; additional site plan and MPO1/WRIGHT/DRG:001 Rev#. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Procedural Matters 2. Although both main parties were satisfied that I could see the relevant parts of the appeal site from public land and did not therefore need to enter the appeal site, the Council requested that I viewed the appeal site from 16 Benwell Grange Road in order to judge the appeal proposal. I confirm that I did so and I have determined the appeal accordingly. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effects of the proposed development upon:  The character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area; and  The living conditions of occupiers of 16 Benwell Grange Road, with particular regard to privacy. Appeal Decision APP/M4510/D/18/3197708 2 Reason Character and appearance 4. Benwell Grange Road is a steeply sloping residential street of predominantly hipped roofed, semi-detached dwellings, from which Benwell Grange Avenue loops around broadly following the contours of the slope. The appeal property is located in the acute angle on the inside of the junction of the two streets. As ground levels fall away to the side and rear of the appeal property, it sits above the immediate level of Benwell Grange Road. 5. Whilst there is a broad consistency in the layout of the dwellings within the streets in terms of a strong building line and a regular rhythm arising from the spacing between the dwellings, the appeal property and its adjoining half deviate somewhat from that prevailing pattern. The pair are turned within their plots and as a consequence their front corners are positioned close to Benwell Grange Avenue and Benwell Grange Road, respectively. 6. Due to the siting of the existing dwelling and its attached garage relative to the lower ground levels of Benwell Grange Road, the appeal property is already a reasonably prominent feature within the street. The proposed extension would add a first floor atop the existing garage creating a flank elevation of additional bulk and height, particularly considered in relation to prevailing ground levels. 7. I do not, however, share the Council’s concern that the proposal would result in an incongruously bulky or dominant form of development. To the rear of the site is the substantial and bulky form of the St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School building. Due to the prevailing ground levels, the school building is itself a dominant and substantial structure set above Benwell Grange Road and from the south it would continue to dominate views up Benwell Grange Road from Armstrong Road. From the north, although prominently sited on the corner of Benwell Grange Avenue and Benwell Grange Road, the appeal property is viewed downhill and below ground level on approach. With the significant backdrop of the school building immediately behind I do not consider that the proposed extension would appear bulky or dominant. 8. The proposed extension would replicate the host property’s hipped roof, would be set back at first floor level and set down from ridge level. The front elevation and corner would be broken up by the pitched and hipped roof of the front porch and garage whilst the flank elevation would also be broken up by a small area of projecting pitched roof. Although side extensions are not commonplace within the surrounding streets, I saw that there was a pair of extended semi-detached properties diagonally opposite that appear to have adopted a similar design approach as that proposed in this instance. 9. Thus, for the reasons I have set out, I consider the proposed extension to be of a scale, style, character and appearance appropriate to the host property. Furthermore, having regard to the surrounding ground levels and, particularly, the significant presence of the school immediately to the rear of the appeal property, I do not consider that the extension would be incongruously bulky or dominant within the streetscene. The open nature of the junction of Benwell Grange Road and Benwell Grange Terrace contributes to my conclusions in this respect. The proposal would therefore contribute to good place-making and would respond positively to local distinctiveness and character, in accordance with policy CS15 of the Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Appeal Decision APP/M4510/D/18/3197708 3 Newcastle upon Tyne 2010-2030 (CS) and saved policies EN1.1 and H2 of the Newcastle Upon Tyne Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Living Conditions 10. The first floor extension would incorporate a window in the front face of the extension. As a consequence of the street and housing layout, the front of No. 7 faces towards, but is offset from, the front of No. 16. 11. The Council are concerned that the relationship between the existing eastern- most first floor window at No. 16 and the proposed first floor window would be within 17.5 metres of each other. I am advised that the Council seeks to achieve at least a 21 metre distance between habitable rooms when drawn within a 90° arc between opposing windows. Although not referred to in the second reason for refusal, I have been supplied with an extract of Development Control Policy Statement 17 (DCPS17). DCPS17 sets out spacing standards for residential development but is clear that ‘for the avoidance of doubt, the standards relate to new housing developments residential care and nursing homes, flat conversions, houses in multiple occupation and hotels’. 12. As the scope of DCPS17 does not appear to include residential extensions, and indeed is not referred to in the second refusal reason, I am unclear as to the basis for the Council’s approach of seeking to achieve a minimum of 21 metres separation. Nor, I note, do the policies that are relied upon set out specific stand-off distances between properties. 13. During my visit to the site I viewed the appeal property and the relationship between it and No. 16 from the first floor windows of No. 16. In the particular circumstances, I am satisfied that the distance, and degree of offset, across the public faces of the two properties would not amount to an undue or harmful impact upon the privacy enjoyed by occupiers of either property. There is inevitably a degree of inter-visibility between properties in residential settings such as that of the appeal site and, in this instance, it relates to the relationship between the public faces of both properties. Having considered carefully the Council’s concerns regarding the 17.5 metre offset standoff that would arise from the proposed extension, I am nonetheless satisfied that the proposal would not result in a loss of privacy to, or overlooking between, the two properties and the proposal would still comply with the overall amenity aims of CS policy CS14 and saved UDP policy H2. Conditions 14. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council in the appeal questionnaire and have considered them against the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. I agree that in addition to time limit and approved plans conditions, a condition to ensure the use of matching materials is necessary in the interests of character and appearance. Conclusion 15. For the reasons set out, and having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Graeme Robbie INSPECTOR