New Dormers to the front, side and rear elevations and new PV panels to the East elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 May 2023 by N Teasdale BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 05 June 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/M4510/D/23/3319321 61 Moor Crescent, Gosforth, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE3 4AQ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant full planning permission. • The appeal is made by Eugene Milne against the decision of Newcastle Upon Tyne City Council. • The application Ref 2022/1806/01/HOU, dated 24 October 2022, was refused by notice dated 1 March 2023. • The development proposed is New Dormers to the front, side and rear elevations and new PV panels to the East elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for New Dormers to the front, side and rear elevations and new PV panels to the East elevation at 61 Moor Crescent, Gosforth, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE3 4AQ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2022/1806/01/HOU, dated 24 October 2022, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) 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. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: Proposed Plans Drawing No. 1110 Rev P03. Procedural Matter 2. The postcode in the banner heading above has been taken from the decision notice and appeal form opposed to the original application form as it correctly identifies the appeal site. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Gosforth Conservation Area (CA). Reasons 4. The appeal property is a two-storey dwelling forming one half of a pair of properties within a residential area. There are a number of different house Appeal Decision APP/M4510/D/23/3319321 2 types and designs within the surrounding area and a wide range of dormers and roof lights are evident within the roofscape. The property fronts onto Moor Crescent where a row of linear trees line both sides of the road which contributes positively to the overall character and appearance of the area. 5. The site lies within the CA and I have a duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. I have had regard to paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in terms of giving great weight to the CA’s conservation. 6. The CA is noted for its housing stock particularly its collection of types and architectural styles including High Victorian, Queen Anne Revival and Edwardian. 7. The site’s significance is derived from its historic and aesthetic merits and the pair of properties exhibit a strong aspect of their original character. The pair therefore make a positive contribution to the CA. 8. The proposed development would introduce a dormer window to the front elevation where there is already a roof light and whilst it would occupy a relatively large proportion of the roof slope, the roof pitch and overall size is one which would allow a reasonable amount of the roof to be retained on all sides. Moreover, the dormer window would be positioned away from the ridge and sides which would help to reduce its bulk and dominance on the building. 9. I acknowledge the Council’s concern regarding the symmetry/design of the pair of properties and its neighbours at No. 63 & 65 Moor Crescent. However, whilst the properties do share a uniformity of design, other nearby properties also benefit from similar strong characteristics and are equally as distinctive. Nevertheless, the proposed dormer window would have a vertical emphasis reflective of the existing fenestration and would be of a size and scale to remain subordinate to the main property. The detailing of the dormer window would also reflect the style and architecture of the main dwelling and pair of properties and would not be harmful to the overall proportions and appearance of the pair of properties and its neighbours. 10. Additionally, the forward projecting gable features of the pair of properties along with the row of trees to the front of the property would help to screen the dormer from certain views particularly on approaching the site along Moor Crescent. As such, any visual impact arising from the proposed development would be limited. In any event, the dormer would not appear discordant given the diverse appearance of dormers nearby, some of which are indeed larger than that proposed and also attached to other distinctive house types that are more visible within the street scene. 11. The proposed development would also introduce a dormer window to the side elevation of the property which would also occupy a large proportion of the roof slope. However, the overall size and configuration of the roof is capable of accommodating a larger dormer on this elevation allowing a reasonable amount of the roof to be retained. It would sit at a lower level than the ridge with an overall design similar and complementary to that of the main dwelling and would therefore still be subordinate. The dormer window on this elevation would be sited further back to the far end of the elevation and the positioning Appeal Decision APP/M4510/D/23/3319321 3 of the neighbouring dwelling along with surrounding trees would help to filter views with the full extent of the dormer window only apparent from short range views at a particular point to the northwest. As with the front dormer window, the side dormer would also have a very limited effect upon the street scene even taking into account the concerns raised regarding the size of the window itself and overall positioning within the roof plane. 12. I acknowledge the Council’s comments regarding other side dormers where these are said to be generally smaller, sit within the roof plane, comprise original features along with the greater amount of fenestration. However, at my site visit, I observed a number of different styles and configurations including a varied position within the roof plane. The presence of other side dormers in the vicinity means that it would not be particularly prominent or dominate the overall appearance of the host property and surrounding area nor be uncomfortable in its context. 13. I conclude that the proposed development would not unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host property and would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. As such, it would not be in conflict with Policy CS15 of the Planning for the Future Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle Upon Tyne 2010-2030, 2015, Policies DM15 and DM20 of the Newcastle Upon Tyne Development and Allocations Plan 2015- 2030, 2020 and paragraphs 4.7 and 4.7.3 of the Gosforth Conservation Area Management Plan Supplementary Planning Document, 2011 which together, amongst other matters, requires development to contribute to good place- making through the delivery of high quality and sustainable design, and the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The proposed development would also accord with chapter 12 of the Framework relating to achieving well-designed places as well as chapter 16 which relates to conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Conditions 14. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council including the standard time for commencement of development which I have applied. I also agree that a plans condition is necessary to ensure that the approved development is carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans. A condition relating to materials would also be required in the interests of the satisfactory appearance of the development upon completion. Conclusion 15. For the above reasons, the appeal should be allowed. N Teasdale INSPECTOR