Appeal 6005826

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to replace flat roof with a pitched hipped ended roof with gym at first floor level and single storey extension on the south side to provide a utility room at [site address] , [site address] , [name], Northumberland [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/04096/FUL, 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 nos: 2890 L(9-)06, 2890 L(2-)11D D3, 2890 L(2-)13D D3, 2890 L92-) 15D D3, 2890 L(2-)12D D3, 2890 L(2-)16D D3, 2890 L(2-)17D D3, 2890 L(2-) 14D D3, 2890 L(9-)08A and 2890 L(2-)18D D3; and

Development shall be carried out in accordance with Section E of the Preliminary Roost Assessment: [name] Northumberland by Barrett Environmental Ltd, January 2026. The built-in bat roost unit shall thereafter be retained.

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.

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

The appeal site is within the woodland residential setting of [name] and accommodates a two-storey detached dwelling in a large plot set behind private gates. The surrounding area consists of similar large dwellings of various styles within spacious plots surrounded by verdant woodland. Due to its scale, form and spacious setting, the appeal dwelling makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would introduce a first-floor extension above the existing single storey element at the rear of the appeal dwelling. The resultant two storey height would be a larger mass than the existing situation. However, the proposed extension would be read as a clearly subservient addition by virtue of its subservience in height to the ridge of the existing dwelling and would be readily assimilated through its hipped roof design that would reflect the existing roofscape. Furthermore, due to its subservience, the modest increase in footprint and the appeal site’s large plot size the proposal can comfortably be accommodated and would not be viewed as an obtrusive addition or erode the dwelling’s spacious setting.

Regarding the proposed jacuzzi extension, this would be roughly sited in place of the existing wooden storage building. The jacuzzi extension would possess a larger footprint than the existing structure. However, due to its detailed design, use of matching materials and modest height it would not compete with the main dwelling. The openings at the rear of the appeal dwelling vary in their proportions and design. Within this context, the proposed fenestration would not be disjointed and would add visual interest.

Additionally, the Council has no concerns regarding the proposed utility extension, and I see no reason to disagree. As such, overall, the proposal would meet the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework that seek well designed places.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling. As such, it would be in accordance with Policies HOU9 and QOP2 of the Northumberland Local Plan (2022) and Policy 10 of the Stannington Parish Neighbourhood Plan (2018). These policies, amongst other things, require development to be of a high-quality design that complement the host property and respect and enhance the local character of the area.

The appeal site falls within the Green Belt. The Council did not find the proposal to be inappropriate development and having visited the site and from the evidence before me, I see no reason to take a different view.

A condition identifying the approved plans is necessary to provide certainty. A condition is also necessary to ensure the development safeguards protected species in the interests of ecology.

The proposal would accord with the development plan, read as a whole, and there are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. 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.