Appeal 6008136

The appeal is dismissed.

The development description in the banner heading above is taken from the appeal form, and the Council’s decision notice, which accurately reflects the proposal.

The main issues are: • The effects of the development on the character and appearance of the area; • The effects of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers; and • The effects of the development on protected species.

In summary, and amongst other matters, Policy HOU 9 of the Northumberland Local Plan 2016 – 2036 (the LP) sets out that the extension or adaptation of existing dwellings shall only be supported where it would remain well-related and subordinate in size and in massing to the existing dwelling, and would be respectful and complementary to the character of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area. Together, [name] 1 and QOP 2 promote good design, seek to ensure the character of an area is preserved, and require developments to contribute to a strong sense of place and integrate their built form within the site and area, including in relation to form, scale and mass.

In addition, Policy PNP 4 of the Ponteland Neighbourhood Plan 2017 (the NP) sets out that residential extensions should be respectful to the scale and mass and separation of adjacent dwellings and the street scene. NP Policy PNP 2 requires developments to protect and add to an area’s quality, distinctiveness and character, and respect the character of the site and its surroundings, including in terms of its proportion, form, massing, height, size and scale.

Properties along [address] are not uniformly designed. They do exhibit some variation, and this has been reinforced by a number of them having been subject to alterations and additions over time. Despite this, there are properties on [address] which share some common design facets. This includes a predominance of similar brickwork, their approaches to roof form and fenestration, or through them exhibiting a similar scale. This means that the street scene retains a sense of cohesion and visual harmony.

The development would significantly enlarge the host property through the addition of two‐storey extensions projecting from both the east and west‐facing elevations. As a result, the level of accommodation and the overall volumetric size of the property would increase to a substantial degree, amounting to a disproportionate form of enlargement that would fail to remain well‐related or subordinate to it. Coupled with this overall degree of enlargement the incorporation of the likes of a full‐width, two‐storey rear gabled projection, and two sets of double bay windows to the front elevation, would result in a significantly transformative alteration and remodelling of the property. Overall, this means that the development would be visually dominant, and it would overwhelm the original scale, proportions and character of the existing property. In turn, the development would result in the property adopting a character and appearance divergent from those properties within [address] which it presently shares complementary design facets. This would undermine and harmfully erode the street scene’s degree of cohesion and visual harmony.

For these reasons, the development would result in unacceptably harmful effects on the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the development conflicts with [name] 9, QOP 1 and QOP 2 and [name] 2 and PNP 4. Furthermore, the development conflicts with policy within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) including that which sets out that developments should add to the overall quality of an area, be visually attractive and sympathetic to local character, and maintain a strong sense of place.

LP Policy HOU 9 sets out that extensions and adaptations shall only be supported where they would not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining property occupants in terms of proximity and unacceptable loss of daylight/sunlight, privacy and visual outlook. LP Policy QOP 2 requires that development does not result in unacceptable harm to the amenity of existing residents, including through adverse impacts on privacy and light, the creation of oppressive outlooks to habitable rooms, or overbearing effects.

No. [address] is positioned to the northern side of the host property, and Nos. 10 and 14A to the south and east respectively (Nos. 14, 10 and 14A). Owing to the topography of [address], No. 14 is set on lower land than the host property, and the two properties have a staggered relationship whereby the rear of No. 14 projects further east than that of the host property. No. 14’s two-storey side elevation contains windows flanking the appeal site, although those at ground-floor level face a fence. Likewise, the host property includes side elevation windows opposite No. 14, albeit they are modest in number and in scale, and that at first-floor level serves an en-suite and is obscurely glazed. Although some quite high coniferous hedging runs alongside the shared boundary between the host property and No. 14 it is positioned too far to the east to act as an effective visual barrier between side elevations of the two buildings.

The existing boundary fence already provides a strong sense of enclosure and significantly restricts outlook from the ground-floor windows of No. 14. However, the first-floor window presently has a far more open aspect. This would change as a result of the development since the proposed two-storey extension to the east would result in a significant rearward enlargement of the host property. It would result in the introduction of an extension of considerable height, scale and mass being positioned opposite No. 14’s flanking first-floor window. The effects would be exacerbated by the properties’ level differences and, although the extension would be set-in from the shared boundary, it would not be positioned very far from it, and the degree of separation which would remain between the properties would not be sufficient to prevent the extension from appearing as an intrusive and overbearing feature when viewed from No. 14’s flanking first-floor window.

The appellant has referred to the Building Research Establishment publication ‘Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight: A guide to good practice’ (the [name]) and asserts that certain tests therein would be met by the development or not breached to any degree of significance. However, this has not been supported by the production of thorough and detailed analysis. Moreover, I am mindful that whilst the [name] is a well-established tool for assessing a range of sunlight and daylight effects, it is only guidance, not an instrument of planning policy.

Due to its southern positioning relative to No. 14, together with its proximity, height, scale, massing and the change in ground levels, the rear extension is likely to increase shading and reduce sunlight and daylight to the accommodation served by No. 14’s flank windows, including those at ground‐floor level.

On completion of the development, the host property’s north-facing side elevation would contain a number of large windows, including those at first-floor level. Some of these windows would be adjacent to the windows within No. 14’s side elevation. Although the proposed plans include an annotation that the windows to habitable rooms within the side elevations would be obscured and incorporate a restricted opening design, I am uncertain as to precisely which windows would adopt this design. For instance, it is very unclear to me whether this design is proposed to include the prayer room or atrium windows. Given this and the position and size of these windows, accommodation within the extended host property has the clear potential to offer views into No. 14’s accommodation, unduly infringing upon occupant privacy.

Mature trees and landscaping along the boundaries of the host property with Nos. 10 and 14A does provide effective screening. This ensures a substantial level of mutual concealment between these properties. Windows within the extended host property’s southern elevation would be more modestly apportioned than those on the northern elevation. The separation distances which would remain between the extended host property and Nos. 14A and properties on the opposite side of [address], such as Nos. 28 and 30, would be generous. For this collection of reasons, on completion of the development, the relationships between the host property and other neighbouring properties in the surrounding area would not be as intimate or as sensitive to the development’s changes as No. 14, and the effects on the living conditions of these other neighbouring occupants would be less pronounced.

However, despite this and for the reasons given, I find that the development would incur a loss of outlook, light and privacy for the occupiers of No. 14 and, overall, result in significant and unacceptably harmful effects on their living conditions. Consequently, the development conflicts with [name] 2 and HOU 9. Conflict also arises with policy within the Framework which seeks to ensure that developments promote health and well-being, and provide a high standard of amenity for existing site users.

Amongst other matters, Circular 06/2005 states that it is essential to establish whether protected species are present, and the extent to which they may be affected by a development, before planning permission is granted. Otherwise, all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision. This circular also states that developers should not be required to undertake surveys unless there is a reasonable likelihood of the species being present and affected by the development.

The site forms part of a network of properties characterised by mature gardens, which provide suitable foraging and commuting habitat for bats. The proposal involves works to the host property’s roof, and such areas can offer opportunities for roosting bats and nesting birds. Evidence before me indicates that a significant number of developments in [site address] have encountered bats and that the amount of construction activity in the local area has resulted in the local bat population being highly mobile and even being drawn to utilising roosts which are sub-optimal. Taking these factors together - the nature of the development, the habitat and roosting opportunities available, and local bat records and distribution - the evidence indicates that there is very much a reasonable likelihood that the protected species of bats are present in the area and could be affected by the development.

No surveys, risk assessments or ecological impact assessments are before me to better establish the presence of bats and inform on the likely effects of the development on them. Furthermore, since bats are a protected species under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, I consider a precautionary approach should be taken. I am also mindful of the statutory duty placed on me by section 40(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing biodiversity.

Therefore, I find that there is a reasonable likelihood that bats are present in the area and for the development to bring about adverse effects on them. In the absence of surveys and assessment work, there is no substantive evidence before me to lead me to a different conclusion.

I also note that the Council’s evidence, informed by an ecology consultee response, presents the potential for the site to support other protected species and, in turn, for the development to potentially adversely affect them. This includes nesting wild birds, red squirrels and great crested newts. Although the evidence concerning the potential for adverse effects on these species is less compelling than that for bats, there is no sound basis before me to find the Council’s submissions to be misdirected or erroneous.

In exceptional circumstances, conditions can be imposed to facilitate protected species surveys. Instances include where original survey work has been undertaken but may need to be updated due to the passage of time. However, in this case, no exceptional circumstances apply, and the use of conditions to determine the presence of protected species would be inappropriate.

Therefore, I conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that protected species are present in the area and for the development to result in adverse effects on them. I am particularly concerned in respect of bats.

Consequently, whilst the development may not affect protected ecological sites or particular designated habitats, my findings in relation to protected species means that the development conflicts with [name] 1 and ENV 2. Taken together, and amongst other matters, these Policies require development to minimise impacts on biodiversity, avoid significant harm, and, where necessary, mitigate and compensate for any such harm. They also advocate an ecosystem approach, which emphasises understanding the significance and sensitivity of natural resources and securing neutral or beneficial outcomes for ecosystems. The proposal also conflicts with the policy within the Framework which sets out that if significant harm to biodiversity cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for, then the development should be refused.

The appellant has referred to various permitted development rights as a potential fall-back position. However, the appeal proposal entails the significant extension of the host property, affecting its front and rear and, in my main issues, I have identified particular harms which would be derived from its design. Permitted development rights are subject to a host of conditions and limitations and, from the detail before me, it is not at all clear that these permitted development rights could be exercised to extend or add to the property in a manner which would result in effects similar or more harmful than the appeal proposal. In such circumstances, the existence of permitted development rights does not weigh in the proposal’s favour to any meaningful extent.

The development may not result in harmful effects in relation to a range of material considerations. However, an absence of harm is of neutral consequence and does not outweigh the harm that I have identified in my main issues.

The development conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.