Two-storey side extension with front porch and lean-to canopy roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 July 2026 by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010400 5B Jesmond Park West, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE7 7BU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Chungh against the decision of Newcastle City Council. • The application Ref is 2024/1233/01/HOU. • The development proposed is a two-storey side extension with front porch and lean-to canopy roof. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to a two-storey side extension. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to a front porch and lean-to canopy roof and planning permission is granted for a front porch and lean-to canopy roof at 5B Jesmond Park West, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE7 7BU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2024/1233/01/HOU and the plans submitted with it, 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 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. The appellant states that the Council failed to acknowledge an extant planning permission1 which may be constructed at any time. The Council’s officer’s report references this planning permission. The appeal before me is for a different form of development to that relating to this previous planning permission. 3. The Council considered and presented no objection to that element of the proposed development relating to a front porch and lean-to canopy roof. Consequently, that part of the proposal is allowed and this appeal decision focuses on that part of the proposal relating to a two-storey side extension. 4. One of the Council’s reasons for refusal referred to a failure to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in harm to adjacent conservation area trees. There is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the front porch and lean-to canopy roof permitted by this appeal decision would impinge, in any way, on conservation area trees. 1 Reference: 1996/0946/01/DET. Appeal Decision 6010400 2 Main Issue 5. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Jesmond Dene Conservation Area. Reasons 6. The appeal property is an extended two storey detached dwelling situated in a residential area. The dwelling is set back from Jesmond Park West behind a parking area and garden and has a small garden to the rear and a larger garden to the side, extending to the corner of Jesmond Park West and Loweswood Close. 7. The appeal property is located within the Jesmond Dene Conservation Area (CA). The CA is characterised by the presence of a mix of late Victorian, Edwardian and more modern housing set amongst naturalistic parkland and green leafy streets and as such, it presents a green, spacious and semi-rural character in close proximity to the centre of Newcastle. 8. The appeal dwelling is located along a green and leafy street, where detached dwellings are located within notably spacious gardens. The extension of the dwelling to the north has resulted in a somewhat elongated frontage to Jesmond Park West, albeit the presence of garden land and trees maintains the overall green and spacious character of the appeal property, in keeping with its surroundings. 9. The proposed side extension would result in the dwelling extending considerably to the side. Further, this element of the proposal would extend across the full depth of the host dwelling. These factors, when combined with the two-storey height of the proposal, would result in an addition of such scale and massing that it would fail to appear as a subservient addition and instead, would appear as a visually intrusive form of development. 10. The two-storey side extension would significantly erode the gap between the appeal dwelling and its neighbour at Number 7 Loweswood Close, to the detriment of the CA’s green and spacious qualities. 11. Further to the above, the two-storey extension would I find, result in a tall, continuous building line. It would create a long terracing effect, and this would lead the appeal dwelling to appear both unduly prominent and awkwardly wide when seen from Jesmond Park West. The harm arising from this would be exacerbated as, despite the roof being set down from the main ridge, the proposed two storey extension would still appear out of scale and proportion with the host dwelling. 12. Given the above, I consider that the proposed two storey side extension would appear out of character with the host dwelling and its surroundings. The proposal would detract from and fail to conserve the appearance of the Jesmond Dene Conservation Area. 13. Having regard to paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and to Planning Practice Guidance, I consider that the harm to the character and appearance of the Jesmond Dene Conservation Area would be less than substantial. This needs to be balanced against any public benefits the proposed development may bring. There is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the proposed development would result in public benefits that would outweigh the harm identified. Appeal Decision 6010400 3 14. Given the above, I find that the proposed development, insofar as it relates to a two-storey side extension, would harm the character and appearance of the Jesmond Dene Conservation Area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policies DM15 and DM20 of the Development and Allocations Plan2; and to Policy CS15 of the Core Strategy3, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Other Matters 15. The appellants, in support of their case, refer to other developments elsewhere. However, there is no substantive information to lead me to consider that these examples are so similar to the proposed two-storey side extension as to provide a precedent for it. Notwithstanding this and in any case, I have found that the proposed two storey side extension would result in harm and hence the decision below. Conditions 16. I have considered the conditions against the tests set out in Paragraph 57 of the Framework. I find that a condition in respect of materials is necessary in the interests of local character. Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed insofar as it relates to a two-storey side extension. The appeal does succeed insofar as it relates to a front porch and lean-to canopy roof. N McGurk INSPECTOR 2 Newcastle upon Tyne Development and Allocations Plan (2020). 3 Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne (2015).