Erection of two storey extension to side and dormer window to rear

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 31 July 2018 by Helen Cassini BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 09 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M4510/D/18/3201536 2 Dene Grove, Gosforth, Newcastle upon Tyne NE3 1PX  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 Ms Whibley against the decision of Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council.  The application Ref: 2017/1922/01/DET, dated 21 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 23 February 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of two storey extension to side and dormer window to rear. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of two storey extension to side and dormer window to rear at 2 Dene Grove, Gosforth, Newcastle upon Tyne NE3 1PX in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 2017/1922/01/DET, dated 21 December 2017, subject to the following conditions: i) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. ii) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Existing Drawing Dwg No: 17480-001 and Proposed Drawing Dwg No: 17480-002 Rev A. iii) 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 and thereafter be retained. Procedural Matter 2. The description of the proposal has been taken from the Council’s decision notice as it provides a full and accurate description of the development. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal site is a two-storey semidetached dwelling, located on a relatively substantial corner plot at the junction of Dene Grove and Stoneyhurst Road. The site is bounded by a brick wall and a significant, mature hedgerow to the front boundary and a portion of the side boundary. The remainder of the side boundary consists of a brick wall and wooden fencing, with double timber gates Appeal Decision APP/M4510/D/18/3201536 2 opening onto a paved parking area to the rear of the dwelling. Garden space is located to the front, side and rear of the dwelling, with a raised decking area being situated adjacent to double patio doors. 5. The planning history of the site is noted. In particular that a single storey rear extension, hip to gable extension to roof and rear dormer was confirmed as permitted development by the issue of a lawful development certificate by the Council in 20171. 6. The site is set within a predominantly residential location. Most dwellings in the locality are either two-storey, semi-detached or form part of a wider terrace. It was noted from observations made during the site visit that a number of dwellings within proximity of the appeal site have undergone extensions, including rear dormers and side extensions. 7. In particular, it was noted that the adjoining dwelling at 4 Dene Grove has been extended. Works on No 4 include a hip to gable roof enlargement, rear dormer window and a side and rear single storey extension. As a consequence of both the extension at No 4, and those within the immediate locality, the original sense of symmetry and spaciousness which would have been afforded to the area has been eroded. Furthermore, as a result of extensions to the front and side of nearby dwellings, separation distances between dwellings and the adjacent highway is notably varied. 8. It is accepted that, at approximately 4 metres, the proposed width of the extension is greater than the permitted development scheme. Nevertheless, the proposed extension would be set back from the front elevation, set in from the side boundary and would have a dropped ridge line. In addition, the proposed external materials would match those on the host dwelling. Accordingly, the side extension would appear as a relatively modest and sympathetically designed feature, which would be a subservient addition to the host dwelling. 9. In regard to the impact on openness and spaciousness, it is acknowledged that the very presence of the proposal would reduce the space between the built form and the highway. However, whilst on a relatively prominent corner plot, Dene Grove forms part of a continuation of Stoneyhurst Road. The road located to the north of the appeal site is of a reduced length and provides access to the nearby recreation ground and to the rear of the dwellings on Audley Road. As confirmed within the Council’s Officers report, adequate separation distance would exist between the host dwelling and No 21. 10. As a consequence of the subservient design and appropriate siting of the proposal, it is not considered that a significant loss of openness to the street scene or wider locality would occur. 11. Concern has also been raised in regard to the proposed fenestration. Given the height and depth of the existing hedge line, views of windows in the front elevation would be extremely limited from within the public realm. Turning to the rear elevation, it is accepted that modern fenestration is proposed. Nevertheless, in line with paragraph 127 (d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the proposed windows would appear as relatively 1 Council reference 2017/1491/01/LDC Appeal Decision APP/M4510/D/18/3201536 3 visually attractive features and, given the level of variance in terms of existing fenestration, would not appear unduly out of place. 12. It was also noted that gable roofs are relatively common features within the locality. Whilst the proposed gable roof would be visible from within the street scene, given the existence of similar features, it would not represent an alien or overly imposing feature. 13. It is accepted that the proposed dormer would be of a large scale. Whilst the dormer would be visible from rear garden areas in the immediate vicinity, it would be seen at an oblique angle from the front elevation of 21 Stoneyhurst Road. It would not therefore appear prominent from this perspective. 14. However, it is nevertheless recognised that the dormer would appear more dominant in views from near the recreation ground. However from this perspective views of host dwelling, and in particular its roof scape, would be seen in context with mature vegetation. As such the visual impact of the dormer would be reduced. Furthermore, the proposed dormer would not alter any strong sense of uniformity on the roof scape or visual rhythm in building design. 15. Moreover, it is noted that under the permitted development scheme, it would be possible for the appellant to construct the dormer. Taking the aforementioned factors into consideration, it is found on balance that the dormer would not appear as an overly dominant or incongruous feature. 16. Considering the proposal as a whole, no conflict with Policy CS15 of the Gateshead Council and Newcastle City Council Planning for the Future, Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle Upon Tyne 2010- 2030, saved Policies EN1.1 and H2 of the Gateshead Unitary Development Plan 2007 and The Newcastle City Council Development Management – Extending Your Home: A Design Guide Series, has been identified. 17. Taken together, these policies and guidance seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development results in high quality design having regard to character and local distinctiveness. In addition, the proposal would also comply with the Framework’s core planning principle of seeking to secure high quality design. Other Matters 18. Concerns have been raised regarding several matters not dealt with in the substantive issue above. In the main, these relate to the potential impact of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. 19. It is acknowledged that a number of the adjoining dwellings on Dene Avenue are set on a lower level than the appeal site. However, as a result of the considerable degree of separation between the appeal site and these dwellings, it is not considered any significant impact would occur to cause material harm in regard to outlook, light or privacy levels. The importance of these matters is not underestimated to those involved. However, although these matters have been taken into account, they have not led me to a different conclusion. Appeal Decision APP/M4510/D/18/3201536 4 Conditions 20. The conditions suggested by the Council have been considered against the tests of the Framework and advice provided by the Planning Practice Guidance. They are all found to be reasonable and necessary in the circumstances of this case. 21. In addition to the standard commencement condition, a condition is necessary requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans in order to provide certainty. A condition relating to materials is also necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Conclusion 22. For the above reasons I therefore conclude that, subject to conditions, the appeal should be allowed. Helen Cassini Inspector