Appeal 3316722

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has made an application for costs against Northumberland County Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property.

Policy HOU9 of the Northumberland County Council Local Plan, amongst other matters, requires that residential extensions are well related and subordinate in size and massing to the existing dwelling and does not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the style and character of the existing dwelling and its setting. The decision notice also refers to Policy QOP2 that, as far as is relevant to the appeal scheme, requires that residential extensions preserve the character of the area.

I saw at the site visit that the appeal property appears as a relatively new building, perhaps due to the various extensions referred to in the Officer’s report, with large expanses of slate roof. The gable ended off-shots to the rear of the property create a semi enclosed patio area. The roof and external stonework provide for some continuation throughout the extended property, whereas the variety of window sizes create a somewhat disjointed appearance.

Adjacent to the site is a short terrace of residential properties of a more traditional character and what appeared to be a large agricultural type shed and an equestrian arena.

The appeal scheme proposes the removal of a detached building, described by the appellant as a garage and the construction of an extension that the Officer’s report details as measuring some 16m by 8m, this would add considerably to the length of the existing property and the resulting extension is, as shown on the submitted plans, a substantial extension both in itself and in proportion to the existing dwelling. Three dormer windows are shown on the rear elevation of the proposed extension.

The proposed extension, in particular the introduction of the dormer windows to the roof, would add considerably to the scale and massing of the built form of the property, substantially unbalancing the dwelling. Furthermore, the dormer windows are not a feature found on the existing property and their introduction breaks the uninterrupted expanse of roof that is a notable feature of the character of the existing property.

The introduction of the gable ended extension is at odds with the prevailing style of the existing property where the gabled ended off-shoots from the property framing the patio area provide the property with something of a logical appearance.

Furthermore, there is an absence of any design features to promote a subservient appearance of the proposed extension, in particular the submitted plans show that the ridge and eves of the proposed extension would be a continuation of the existing property, exaggerating the existing linear form of the property. I previously noted the variety of window sizes in the appeal property and the windows of the extension continue this somewhat disjointed appearance by introducing further window sizes and styles seemingly without reference to the existing property.

The appellant states that the extension represents an increase in the footprint of 23%, this figure is not disputed by the Council, but I do not find that this in itself means that the proposed extension would appear as subservient to the existing dwelling.

Furthermore, while the submitted plans show that the extension would be constructed of materials similar to that of the existing property and it is not at dispute that the appeal scheme would not have a detrimental effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties, these matters do not outweigh the harm I have previously identified.

Therefore, I find that based on the evidence before me the proposed extension would not appear to be well related to and would fail to appear subservient to the existing property, would introduce features that are not found within the existing property and that harm the character and appearance of the appeal property. Thus, the appeal scheme is contrary to policies HOU9 and Policy QOP2 of the Northumberland County Council Local Plan.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.