Northumberland County Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Northumberland?
Learn which proposal details and site features mattered in the selected Northumberland examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 76 of 109
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 19
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 55
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 72
- of 76 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Northumberland LPA (55.232472, −2.023078). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Northumberland County Council appeal findings
Northumberland character: size, visibility and trees
A tree-root case (22248) is at the edge of this issue, and extract 63450 gives only the Inspector’s final conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Northumberland extension and tree concerns
Extension found harmful
The extension was found harmful. The decision says householder development should relate well to the home and stay subordinate in size and massing.
Garage foundations threatened a character tree
The garage foundations were likely to enter much of the tree’s root protection area, risking root damage and loss of a tree that helped the area’s appearance.
Conclusion: character harm justified dismissal
The extract says character-and-appearance harm justified dismissal despite the effect on the occupant’s use of rooms.
Helped or needed
Northumberland extension and workshop details
A coherent T-shape
The extension’s position and perpendicular roof formed a proportionate, coherent T-shape with the bungalow.
Height matched neighbouring homes
Its height was comparable with neighbouring dwellings, and its secluded cul-de-sac position meant the modern design would not stand out in the street scene.
Workshop size was not excessive
The Inspector found the workshop’s overall mass and scale were not excessive, so it would not harm the area’s character and appearance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice say your extension is too large or dominant?
- Does it identify a tree or root protection area at risk?
- Does it say your height, roof or position jars with nearby homes?
The tree-root example (22248) and conclusion-only extract (63450) do not cover every local character issue. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
2 examples
1 September 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
part first floor extension to existing bungalow.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Patently the two-storey height of the extension would not be subservient to the existing bungalow. Nonetheless, the extension would be located at one end of the building with its roof running perpendicular to the existing, such that once the extension is constructed, the lower and higher elements would dovetail neatly together in a proportionate and coherent t-shape form. In addition, the height of the extension would be comparative with neighbouring dwellings and it would not extend any further towards the front and side boundaries. The modern design would be bespoke to the property, but owing to the site’s secluded location at the end of the cul-de-sac, the development would not be unduly conspicuous in the street scene.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
27 April 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the construction of a new garage workshop on site of former garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect the development would have on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed workshop’s overall mass and scale would not be so excessive that considered within its context it would harm the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would avoid conflict with Local Plan Policies HOU 9(2) and QOP 2(2) which require good design for householder proposals.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
31 August 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
an upwards extension of existing first floor bedroom, with removal of low level tiled pitched roof and replaced with proposed high level tiled pitched roof, including proposed Juliet balcony to west elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I recognise that the proposal would create additional living space for the occupants of the dwelling, and this would be of a benefit to them, but great importance is attached to achieving high quality design. Despite my finding about the scheme against MNP Policy Set2, I conclude, when the scheme is considered in overall terms, that the proposed first floor extension would harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would not accord with Local Plan Policies HOU 9 and QOP 1 and MNP Policy Des1. These policies jointly seek residential developments to be of a high quality of design, and well related and subordinate in size and massing to the existing dwelling and the prevailing built form so they respect or enhance the character of the site and its surroundings and make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
20 October 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey flat roofed garage to rear of back garden.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
However, it is likely that foundations for the garage would be constructed within a large proportion of the root protection area of the tree, risking significant root damage on its northern side which could lead to the decline and death of the tree. The tree contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area and its decline/loss would harm it.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
24 January 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
proposed side extension and front extension to existing dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I acknowledge that the consequence of dismissing the appeal would be that the appellant’s free use of all rooms in their home would be restricted. However, the harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the area is such that dismissal of the appeal would be a proportionate and necessary response that would not violate the appellant’s rights under Article 1 of the [name] or Article 8.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3