Appeal 3354237

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for demolish existing sunroom/conservatory to the rear; two storey rear extension; associated works and alterations to existing dormer windows, single storey rear extension at [site address] , Cresswell, Morpeth [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/02693/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no’s Location Plan, [name] 2316 – 005E, [name] 2316 – 004D and Existing and [name] 2316 – 010A

The extension shall be erected in compliance with the materials shown on the approved plan 2316 – 005E.

To ensure there is a net gain in ecological value a minimum of one bat box shall be built into the renovated building following best practice guidance placing the box as close to the eaves as possible on the south, south-east or south-west elevation.

All works shall be undertaken in accordance with the [name] for bats detailed at [name] of Ecological Impact Assessment – Bats and Birds, [site address] Cresswell, Morpeth, [name], 17th June 2024. Works should not commence in the bird nesting season, March to August inclusive. If this period cannot be avoided, a nesting bird check must be undertaken immediately prior to commencement of works by a suitably qualified ecologist. If active bird nests are found, they must be protected until after young have fledged.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

Planning permission has recently been granted for a rear extension that is similar to the scheme the subject of this appeal (reference 23/03231/FUL). This creates an important fall-back position, indicating development that could be implemented without the requirement to obtain further planning permission. The Council considers that the proposed alterations to the windows and dormers are as previously approved and are acceptable and that the proposed flat roof single storey extension was also acceptable. As the Council is only concerned with respect to changes to the two-storey element, and in consideration of the fall-back position, I shall largely focus on the effect of the two-storey rear extension.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property.

The appeal property is within a coastal village setting. It is a two-storey detached dwelling served by a private driveway and set back from the highway. It is surrounded by two storey residential dwellings of various styles within spacious plots. The properties consist of various materials including the use of render and stonework. Due to its scale, form and spacious setting, the appeal dwelling makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed extension only differs from the approved scheme through the addition of zinc cladding to the two-storey element and in altering its roof from a hipped roof to a flat roof. Due to its two-storey form and footprint, the rear extension would occupy a larger area than the existing single storey conservatory. However, the proposed extension would be read as a clearly subservient addition by virtue of its flat roof design and lack of intrusion into the existing hipped roof form. Furthermore, due to the appeal site’s large garden size the extension would not be viewed as an obtrusive addition or erode its spacious setting. The existing conservatory also does not relate overly well to the existing property due to its design and roof pitch. The proposed extension, whilst differing in roof design and materials, would be constructed in high quality materials and in this respect would be an improvement over the existing situation.

It is undoubtedly the case that the use of zinc differs to the existing material pallet of the appeal property, but I am not persuaded that this equates to a harmful impact. The zinc cladding presents an attractive finish to the extension, would be used in a discreet manner and adds visual interest to the rear elevation of the dwelling.

Consequently, the proposal would not result in a harmful effect on the character or appearance of the host property. As such, it would comply with [name] 9, QOP 1 and QOP 2 of the Northumberland Local Plan (2022)(LP) and the National Planning Policy Framework. These policies and guidance, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development and residential extensions are of a high-quality design that complement the host property and respect and enhance the local character of the area.

Time limit and plans conditions are necessary and reasonable in order to provide certainty and for enforcement purposes. I have also attached a materials condition which is necessary and reasonable in the interests of character and appearance. Conditions are also necessary to ensure the development provides a net gain in ecological value and to safeguard protected species to satisfy LP policy ENV2 and in the interests of ecology.

The proposal would accord with the development plan, when taken as a whole, and there are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.