# Garages rear of 13 Morven Drive, Bill Quay, Gateshead

- **Decision:** dismissed, 14 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A M Nilsson (on recommendation of J Reed, appeal planning officer)
- **Authority:** Gateshead (North East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6007856
- **Application reference:** DC/25/01337/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Raised roof to central garage in a row of flat-roofed garages to house a motorhome (retrospective)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4(1), DP3(1)
- **Development plan policies:** Gateshead and Newcastle Core Strategy 2015 CS15, Making Spaces for Growing Places 2021 MSGP17, MSGP24, Householder SPD
- **Main issues:** character and appearance, neighbour outlook
- **Tags:** tier-2, retrospective, design-refusal, living-conditions, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, upward-extension, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation

## Summary
A retrospective raised roof on the middle garage of a flat-roofed block, built to take a motorhome. Dismissed. The dark, boxy roof harms the character of the garage row and dominates the outlook of two neighbouring houses. The S4 benefits (storage, security) were limited and "substantially outweighed". The Framework's support for upward extensions did not apply given the harm to character (DL ¶25).

## What made the difference
The site is a uniform row of flat-roofed garages right next to neighbours' rear gardens. The appellant gave no evidence of crime or of a lack of alternative storage (DL ¶¶23, 26).

## Policy findings
- **DP3(1): fail.** large, boxy, dark raised roof out of keeping with a uniform row of flat-roofed garages; overbearing to Nos 13 and 15 (DL 8-19, 24)
- **L2: fail.** support for upward extensions does not apply where there is substantial harm to the character of the building and its surroundings (DL 25)
- **S4(1): fail.** limited benefits (motorhome storage, security) substantially outweighed (DL 24)

## Key facts
- Works complete at the time of the site visit; appellant relied on an unsourced AI response about garage sizes, given limited weight (DL 4, 21)
- Decided without consulting the parties on the 2026 Framework (DL 3)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007856
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/824bdeda-3453-4ee9-b5bf-6957a9b69856

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007856.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.