Front dormer enlargement and refurbishment, together with window replacement

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 October 2018 by David Cross BA(Hons) PgDip(Dist) TechIOA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W4515/D/18/3208010 22 Hotspur Street, Tynemouth, Tyne and Wear NE30 4EL  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 Mark Tallent against the decision of North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref 18/00126/FULH, dated 19 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 8 May 2018.  The development proposed is front dormer enlargement and refurbishment, together with window replacement. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been published since the appeal was lodged. Both main parties have had the opportunity to comment on any relevant implications for the appeal. I have had regard to the Framework in reaching my decision. 3. The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. However, in Part E of the appeal form it is stated that the description of development has not changed but, nevertheless, a different wording has been entered. Neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed. Accordingly, I have used the one given on the original application. 4. At the time of my site visit the development had commenced and the front dormer appeared to be substantially complete. Main Issue 5. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the Tynemouth Village Conservation Area. Reasons 6. The appeal site is part of a terrace which I saw has a variety of dormer windows on the front roofscape. The site is located within the Tynemouth Village Conservation Area (CA) and as such I have had regard to the duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance. The CA Management Strategy Supplementary Planning Appeal Decision APP/W4515/D/18/3208010 2 Document1 (SPD) emphasises the importance of terraces to the CA, as they represent such a large part of the housing in the area. This reflects my own observations in respect of the role of this terrace in contributing to the importance of the CA as a designated heritage asset. 7. Based on the evidence before me, including the submitted plans and a photograph, the dormer window that has been replaced was not of a traditional design and detracted from the appearance of the host property and the CA. However, the previous dormer did not extend across the full width of the property and had a front elevation which was fully glazed, which reduced its visual impact to a degree. In contrast, the replacement dormer extends across almost the full width of the property with windows of an unsympathetic modern appearance separated by a solid fascia. This would increase the bulk and massing of the dormer on the prominent front roof slope and would exacerbate the harm arising from its unsympathetic and ungainly appearance. 8. In support of the appeal, my attention has been drawn to other properties in the area which have dormer windows of a similar scale and which use modern materials. However, the Council highlight that many of these have been in place for a significant period of time and would not be considered acceptable now. I also note that the SPD highlights that existing large box dormers that dominate the roofscape must not set a precedent or be a design cue. Indeed, those that I saw served to confirm that such dormers appear as obtrusive features within the roofscape of the terrace to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. 9. I acknowledge that there is a subjective element in the assessment of the effect of a development on character and appearance. However, for the reasons stated above I agree with the Council’s conclusions on this matter and I am satisfied that it has been able to substantiate its reason for refusal. 10. I therefore conclude that the proposal will be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the CA due to its size and design. The proposal will therefore be contrary to Policies DM6.1, DM6.2, S6.5 and DM6.6 of the LP in relation to the design of extensions to buildings and their effect on heritage assets. The proposal will also be contrary to the advice of the SPD in respect of the design principles for dormer windows. The proposal will also conflict with the Framework with regards to conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Other Matters 11. I note the frustrations expressed by the appellant in relation to the decision process leading up to this appeal and the lack of feedback from the Council. However, this is not a matter for this appeal which I have determined on its planning merits. 12. I am also mindful of the benefits of the proposal including enhanced insulation and living accommodation as well as improvements to a property of a dilapidated appearance. However, whilst the harm to the significance of the wider CA is less than substantial, I consider that the public benefits of the proposal will not outweigh the identified harm. 1 Tynemouth Village Conservation Area Management Strategy Supplementary Planning Document 2014 Appeal Decision APP/W4515/D/18/3208010 3 Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above, and taking account of all material planning considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. David Cross INSPECTOR