Appeal 3307467

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a dormer window to roof slope on principal (south) elevation at [site address] , Ponteland [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/01413/FUL, dated 19 April 2022, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 279-00 Location Plan, 279-01 Existing Site Plans & Elevations, 279-02 Proposed Site Plans & Elevations dated 12.09.2022.

I sought clarification on a previously approved permission, which had been drawn to my attention1. The approved plans had been referred to in the appellant’s evidence. I am satisfied that no parties would be prejudiced by my acceptance of the plans associated with the earlier application, as they had been referred to within the appellants evidence and the Council would have been aware of the previous consent, and the Council would also have had access to these.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. 1 Council reference 18/00127/FUL – Raising of the roof to create additional first floor, dormer bungalow. Fully glazed conservatory extension to the rear and internal alterations.

The appeal property is detached dwelling. Many of the dwellings within the wider [site address] estate have clearly been extended over time in various different sizes and forms. Dene Park is characterised by detached bungalows set in spacious plots. Although most of the bungalows on Dene Park have unaltered simple roof forms, the appeal property appears anomalous as it has a large, glazed apex window centrally positioned on the host building.

The front dormer window, although prominent as a result of being set at the same height as the ridgeline on the main dwelling, would be well balanced within the front roof slope aligning with the window below. Although it would have a width that would be almost equal to the ground floor window, this would not be dissimilar to the approved proposal, which to my mind included a similar sized dormer window.

The overall composition of the dwelling has a variance in roof pitches. The proposal would be seen in the context of the existing large, glazed apex window on the front of the house; thus, the extent of glazing would not appear incongruous in this instance. Although the dormer window has a differing roof pitch, it would reflect the more contemporary and varied character this property now presents.

The dormer window would be visible from public vantage points on Dene Park and Burnside. However, the dormer window would still appear subservient set against the scale of the central window and the remaining expanse of the roof. The central window would also screen and mitigate the effect of the proposal from certain views.

As the appeal property has already been significantly altered, and even though the proposal would result in change to the form and appearance of the host dwelling, overall, for the above reasons it would be achieved in an appropriate manner. This would be, both in respect of the existing dwelling and the varied character of the surrounding area.

I therefore conclude that the development would not harm the character or appearance of the area. Consequently, the proposal complies with Policy HOU 9 of the Northumberland Local Plan (March 2022) and Policy PNP2 and PNP4 of the Ponteland Neighbourhood Plan (2017). These seek good design which respects the appearance of the property and the quality, distinctiveness and character of the area.

As suggested by the Council in the appeal Questionnaire, I have imposed the standard commencement condition. I have also imposed an approved plans conditions to provide certainty. I note the comments from the Council’s ecologist, but I am satisfied these matters are covered by other legislation and therefore do not need to be subject to specific conditions.

Subject to these conditions, and for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.