Remove existing rear dormer and construct new bathroom, en-suite, and dressing room extension over existing rear offshot

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 August 2018 by Alison Roland BSc DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/A4520/D/18/3205898 2 Front Street, East Boldon, NE36 0SN.  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 Ian Brown against the decision of South Tyneside Council.  The application Ref: ST/0353/18/HFUL, dated 4 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 15 June 2018.  The development proposed is remove existing rear dormer and construct new bathroom, en-suite, and dressing room extension over existing rear offshot. Procedural Matter 1. During the course of the planning application revised plans were submitted which reduced the scale of the extension by setting the second floor back. I have determined the appeal on the basis of these plans. Decision 2. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the East Boldon Conservation Area (CA). Reasons 4. The CA is based on the linear core of the old village, the significance of which is derived from its eclectic mix of architectural styles from the seventeenth century to the present day. Front Street comprises one of the distinct character areas in the CA characterised by Victorian and Edwardian development at either end of the street with some earlier properties in between. The appeal property comprises the end property of a particularly attractive and charming Victorian terraced block which is locally listed. With the exception of No 12 at the western end, the block appears largely unaltered and exhibits the fine architectural detailing typical of the period. 5. The proposals would see the rear lean-to of the appeal property increased in height to accommodate an additional storey which would have a hipped roof. There are three reasons which lead me to have concerns over this. Appeal Decision APP/A4520/D/16/3205898 2 6. The first is that the hipped roof would sit somewhat discordantly against the pitched roof of the rear of the terrace with its prominent gable end, appearing as a modern and unsympathetic addition thereto. It would also appear jarring viewed in the context of Grange Terrace opposite (also locally listed) with its attractive rhythm of neat pitched roofs to the wall dormers along the frontage. 7. Secondly, the massing and scale of the extension would visually overwhelm the existing rear lean-to, which in accordance with the principles of architectural hierarchy, has been designed as a relatively discrete element, sitting well below the main eaves of the property. The effect would be exacerbated because of the height and width of the proposal spanning the rear elevation. The proposal would fail to achieve a sufficient degree of subordination to the host property. It would also partially conceal views of the attractive dormer to the rear of the adjoining property. 8. Thirdly the fact that the rear element is set at a slight angle relative to the main gable, would result in an awkward junction of the roof with the host building, with the ridge appearing skewed relative thereto. I appreciate that this is a consequence of the existing layout, but the proposal would accentuate this and appear as a somewhat clumsy addition in consequence. 9. I take the point that the existing rear dormer is an unsympathetic addition, but it is nonetheless a relatively discrete element on the rear elevation, allows the original lean-to to be understood and “read” as a subordinate element and does not unduly detract from the rear of the terrace as a whole. I also appreciate that No 12 at the opposite end of the terrace has a substantial rearwards projection, but this is of a different design and also occupies a far more discrete position, unlike the appeal property which stands on the street corner opposite a further locally listed terrace. 10.For these reasons, I conclude on the main issue that the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. The harm to its significance would be less than substantial in the terms espoused in paragraph 196 of the Framework, but I do not find any public benefits that would outweigh it. 11.The proposal would thus conflict with Policies DM1 and DM6 of the South Tyneside Local Development Framework Development Management Policies (December 2011), Policy CA-EB3 of the Local Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 15: East Boldon Conservation Area Management Plan (April 2009), Policy HA1 of SPD 21: Locally Significant Heritage Assets (November 2011) and the guidance in SPD 9: Householder Developments (revised January 2014). These seek to ensure that new development reinforces local identity, conveys sensitive consideration to its surroundings, is appropriate in terms of its scale, form, detailing and design and preserves and where possible enhances the character and appearance of heritage assets, including CA’s and locally listed buildings. ALISON ROLAND INSPECTOR