Proposed development was described as “Part demolition of existing residential ancillary/incidental outbuilding and walls with proposed extension and new gable ended roof to remaining outbuilding and new extension link to join outbuilding to main house

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 18 August 2025 by A Hartley LLB (Hons) Solicitor MBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 05 September 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/P2935/D/25/3368127 127 Bondicar Terrace, Blyth, Northumberland NE24 2JZ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Peter Shahzad, Akhtar and Rashida Saleem against the decision of Northumberland County Council. • The application Ref is 24/03041/FUL • The proposed development was described as “Part demolition of existing residential ancillary/incidental outbuilding and walls with proposed extension and new gable ended roof to remaining outbuilding and new extension link to join outbuilding to main house.” Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for part demolition of outbuilding and walls, proposed extension, new gable ended roof to remaining outbuilding and new extension link to join outbuilding to main house at 127 Bondicar Terrace, Blyth, Northumberland NE24 2JZ in accordance with the terms of the application reference 24/03041/FUL and the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following approved plans including the use of the specified materials that shall be retained thereafter: Location Plan dated 14/7/21, Existing Site Plan Rev01, Existing Plans and Elevations Rev01, Proposed Site Plan Rev01, Proposed Floor and Roof Plans Drawing No. JPR004 Rev01, Proposed Elevations Drawing No. JPR005 Rev01. Preliminary Matters 2. I have taken the description of development from the Notice of Decision as it more accurately describes the proposal. The description of development in this Decision is therefore for “part demolition of outbuilding and walls, proposed extension, new gable ended roof to remaining outbuilding and new extension link to join outbuilding to main house”. Main Issue 3. The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Blyth Bondicar Terrace Conservation Area (BBTCA). Appeal Decision APP/P2935/D/25/3368127 2 Reasons 4. The appeal site is within the BBTCA. I am therefore mindful of the statutory duty set out in Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA) that requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. 5. From my observations on site, the special significance of the BBTCA lies in the grid pattern of development and the architectural merit of the 19th and early 20th century terraces and detached houses. The detached houses are large in scale, of elaborate designs and set back from both highways within large plots that span between Bondicar Terrace and Marine Terrace. High brick walls and gates along both Marine Terrace and Bondicar Terrace, together with mature trees, result in only glimpsed views of the large properties from public vantage points, evoking a sense of grandeur and privacy. They each have distinct architectural styles. The neighbouring large properties along the same side of Bondicar Terrace as the appeal property have single storey outbuildings of differing designs, sizes and materials, positioned close to or abutting the Bondicar Terrace road frontage, with roofs visible above the high walls. 6. The appeal property is one of the large, detached properties, with an existing outbuilding to the Bondicar Terrace frontage. The host dwelling is constructed in brick with rendered finish and timber panelling to upper storeys. Its design contributes positively to the character of the BBTCA and surrounding area. From the road, as with other outbuildings along this side of Bondicar Terrace, the roof of the existing outbuilding is visible above the high brick boundary wall from the road. This maintains the sense of enclosure of the dwelling within its large plot behind high red brick walls that is a feature of this part of the BBTCA. Part of an internal stone garden wall that links to the existing extensions to the main house is also visible. Due to its light stone materials this appears stark and incongruous in the street scene in contrast to the predominantly attractive red brick enclosing the appeal site. The removal of the stone wall would make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the BBTCA. 7. Due to their scale, design and materials, the proposed extensions to the host dwelling and outbuilding dwelling would both appear subordinate to the host dwelling. The proposed outbuilding may be larger than some others in the area, however, the narrow nature and frameless glazed appearance of the link between it and the house would ensure the outbuilding continues to be perceived as such, as the space between would remain legible. This would preserve the pattern of development within the BBTCA, where substantial detached houses feature detached outbuildings within their large grounds. 8. For these reasons the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the positive contribution that it makes to the character and appearance of the BBTCA. With cognisance of my statutory duty in the LBCA, the proposal would accord with Policies ENV 7 and ENV 9 of the Northumberland Local Plan (2022) that seek to ensure, amongst other things, that development proposals are designed to a high quality, well detailed, and enhance and reinforce the distinctiveness of Conservation Areas. It also accords with paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which states that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets. Appeal Decision APP/P2935/D/25/3368127 3 Other Matter 9. The advisory comments of the Council’s Ecologist suggest an informative regarding the legal protection afforded to bats and other protected species. Although this formal decision does not include an informative, the issue is drawn to the appellant’s attention. Conditions 10. I have had regard to the planning conditions suggested by the Council. I have considered them against the tests in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans which include use of materials and a requirement that these are retained thereafter in the interests of the character or appearance of the BBTCA and to provide certainty. I have not imposed the Council’s suggested condition requiring matching materials as the approved materials differ from the host dwelling and are already specified on the approved plans. Conclusion 11. The proposed development would not conflict with the development plan. There are no material considerations which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given and subject to conditions, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. INSPECTOR A Hartley