Single storey extension and internal alterations to main house giving more user-friendly internal layout. Extension and conversion of garage to create an annex for family members, ancillary to main dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 May 2026 by J Reed MPlan MRTPI Decision by R Major BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6006998 Houghton Moor, Heam Road from Houghton Moor to Blakeley Hill, Heddon-on- the-wall, Northumberland NE15 0EZ • 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 Neelu Jassal against the decision of Northumberland County Council. • The application Ref is 25/03682/FUL. • The development proposed is described as single storey extension and internal alterations to main house giving more user-friendly internal layout. Extension and conversion of garage to create an annex for family members, ancillary to main dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. 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. Preliminary Matter 3. On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. In reaching my decision, I have therefore had regard to the Framework published in December 2024. Main Issues 4. The appeal site is within the Green Belt. Therefore, the main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area, and; • if the proposal would be inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it. Appeal Decision 6006998 2 Reasons for the Recommendation Whether Inappropriate Development 5. Policies STP 7 and STP 8 of the Northumberland Local Plan 2016-2036 (NLP) relate to the spatial strategy and strategic approach to development in the Green Belt. Policy STP 8 explains that in assessing development proposals within the Green Belt, development that is inappropriate, in accordance with national planning policy, will not be supported except in very special circumstances where other considerations clearly outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm resulting from the proposal. It then goes on to state that development, which is not inappropriate in the Green Belt, as defined in national planning policy, will be supported. 6. The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It goes on to state that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 7. The Framework establishes that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate development but lists exceptions in paragraphs 154 and 155. The appellant contends that the exceptions at paragraph 154 (c) and 154 (g) are applicable to this proposal. 154 (g) – limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of Previously Developed Land 8. Paragraph 154 (g) relates to the limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL), whether redundant or in continuing use, which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. 9. The Framework defines PDL as land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed). The definition however specifically excludes land in built-up areas such as residential gardens. 10. The appeal relates to a residential dwelling and garage within a sizeable plot, that is not situated within a ‘built up area’. Consequently, I find that the site falls within the definition of PDL as per the Framework. 11. The next step of the assessment is whether the proposal would form limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of PDL. In this regard, the Framework does not define either of the terms ‘limited’ or ‘infilling’ and as a result this is a matter of planning judgement based on the development proposed and its relationship to other existing development. 12. Given the level of development proposed relative to the size of the site, I consider the scale of the proposal to be limited. However, whilst the proposed ‘link’ extension between the dwelling and garage could be considered as an infill extension the proposal also includes significant extensions to the footprint and height of the existing garage. This substantial part of the proposal is not a form of ‘infilling’ and I do not therefore consider the proposal as a whole represents limited infilling. Appeal Decision 6006998 3 13. Turning to the matter of whether the proposed development would amount to “partial or complete redevelopment of PDL”, again, this is not defined and is therefore a matter of fact and degree. To my mind, redevelopment of land would generally involve the construction of new buildings, typically following the demolition of previous ones. 14. In this regard, the description of development refers to “single storey extension and internal alterations to main house…” and “extension and conversion of garage…”. This description does not infer there will be any substantive demolition or removal. I do acknowledge there will be an element of removal to facilitate the proposed works, however there is nothing physically disappearing as part of the proposed development. To the contrary the existing buildings on site are being extended and altered. 15. I do not therefore consider the proposed works to extend and alter the existing dwelling and garage constitutes “partial or complete redevelopment”. Furthermore, the extension or alteration of a building is already recognised as a distinct type of development that can be considered as an exception in the Green Belt under paragraph 154 (c), and this is specifically assessed below. 16. In view of the above, I conclude that what is proposed as part of this appeal is essentially the extension and alteration of the existing buildings on site, rather than amounting to either the partial or complete redevelopment of the land. Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would not fall within the exception set out in paragraph 154 (g) of the Framework. 17. In coming to the above view, I am cognisant that when assessing a previous appeal1 on this site the Inspector found that the proposal did amount to the ‘partial redevelopment of PDL’. However, I do not have all the details before me in respect of that appeal. Moreover, I note that proposal was for the “extension, alteration and subdivision of existing single dwellinghouse to create two dwellinghouses”. As such, I do not find that appeal scheme to redevelop the site to create two dwellings is directly comparable to the appeal scheme before me for extensions and alterations to the existing dwelling and garage in respect of the assessment as to whether the appeal proposal represents “partial or complete redevelopment”. 154 (c) – disproportionate additions 18. With regard to the exemption outlined in paragraph 154 (c), this allows for the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The appeal proposal involves several extensions to the appeal dwelling as well as a linked extension to the existing garage which is also proposed to be extended substantially. The proposals therefore can be assessed under paragraph 154 (c) of the Framework. 19. The Framework does not define what constitutes disproportionate additions, and my attention has not been drawn to any such definition within the NLP. An assessment of whether the proposal would be disproportionate to the original building is therefore a matter of planning judgement. However, in undertaking this 1 APP/P2935/W/24/3337877 Appeal Decision 6006998 4 exercise it is reasonable to have regard to the overall size increase in terms of matters such as volume, floorspace and footprint. 20. In this regard, the proposal does not include a detailed breakdown of the mathematical increases in comparison to the original building. However, the Council state that the proposed extensions, as well as previous additions to the dwelling, would result in a 105% volume increase above the original dwelling’s size. This is not disputed by the appellant. 21. Furthermore, and based on the evidence before me, I find that the proposed extensions and alterations would substantially increase the built form of development on this site, in terms of floorspace and footprint. 22. Specifically, the proposed single storey extension at the front of the dwelling would increase the depth of the development to this elevation. At the rear the proposal includes a single storey link extension to the garage, as well as a significant extension and alteration to the garage’s height, scale and footprint. These additions would substantially increase the bulk of built development to the rear, with these additions significantly increasing the footprint and volume of built development on the site. Cumulatively, the proposed extensions would be read as a substantial increase to the size of the existing buildings on site. 23. Consequently, I find that the proposed extensions and alterations would represent disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building and therefore the proposal would not meet the exception at 154 (c). Conclusion on whether inappropriate development 24. For the reasons given, I find that the proposal would not represent limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of PDL. Furthermore, the proposed extensions and alterations would represent disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 25. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not meet any of the exceptions listed in the Framework and consequently represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt, conflicting with the Green Belt protection aims of the Framework and NLP Policy STP 8. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. 26. I note the Council’s reason for refusal also refers to the proposal failing to accord with NLP Policy STP 7. However, my attention has not been drawn to which of the criteria (a – g) within this policy the proposal would be in conflict. Having read this policy, and based on the evidence before me, I do not find that the proposal would result in any conflict and therefore this policy has not been determinative in respect of this main issue. Openness 27. Paragraph 142 of the Framework indicates that openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt, with a key objective being to keep land permanently open. Openness has both a visual and spatial dimension. 28. Houghton Moor is set in a large expansive plot set away from the road and is surrounded by a generous garden. Surrounding the appeal site is the highway known as the B6528 as well as open fields and pockets of trees. The openness of Appeal Decision 6006998 5 the site is derived from the appeal dwelling’s generous plot and the space surrounding the dwelling. 29. The proposed extensions would decrease the spatial aspect of the site’s openness through increasing the footprint and extent of built form on the site due particularly to the land take of the proposed extensions. The proposed extensions would therefore result in harm to the Green Belt in spatial terms. 30. The appeal site is set back from the highway and is surrounded by hedging, such that the dwelling is generally well screened from the highway and the surrounding public realm when viewed at a distance. However, there are localised views of the built development on site from the highway when approaching the appeal site from the east. 31. The proposal would result in visual harm on the Green Belt’s openness due to the substantial increase in scale and prominence of the built development on the site, including the increased depth of the main dwelling, the substantial increase in height and footprint to the garage building and the infilling of the space presently separating the dwelling and the detached garage. 32. Overall, I conclude that the proposal would cause limited harm to both the spatial and visual aspects of the Green Belt’s openness. The proposal would therefore conflict with the Framework insofar as it sets out that openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. This harm is an addition to the inappropriateness of the scheme. Character and appearance 33. The appeal dwelling is a two-storey property with a detached garage to its rear. The dwelling possesses a modest porch to its front as well as a single storey side element. Both the main dwelling and detached garage have a high solid to void ratio and are clad in stone with slate roofs, and have brown uPVC windows and doors. Prominent design features such as headers and sills, gables and quoins give the appeal site a traditional character and appearance. The surrounding area is rural with detached dwellings in large plots appearing in intervals. These properties share the use of traditional materials and design features with the appeal dwelling. It is the appeal dwelling’s traditional form and use of traditional materials which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. 34. The proposed single storey front extension would occupy the entire width of the dwelling’s main front elevation and would join to the existing single storey side element. The resultant development would be a large, prominent and dominant addition which would subsume the front elevation and alter the existing dwelling’s traditional character and design. Although the extension would use appropriate materials and respect the window proportions present to this elevation, it would erode the simple form of the existing dwelling and result in the loss of the existing porch to this elevation which is a positive design feature. 35. Turning to the rear, the proposed link extension, as well as the alterations to the existing garage would result in a sprawling substantial form of development as a result of their land take, size and scale. I note that to the rear elevation the existing glazing pattern is more irregular. However, regardless of this, the large amount of glazing incorporated within the proposal would appear as a stark contrast to the existing solid to void arrangement and would fail to harmonise with the existing dwelling’s simple form. Furthermore, the additional contemporary features such as the overhanging gable to the extended garage, the predominantly glazed gable Appeal Decision 6006998 6 addition and the external metal staircase would appear as highly incongruous and alien additions to the traditional features and appearance of the dwelling. 36. I acknowledge that the appeal site is generally screened. However, as detailed earlier, glancing views of the dwelling can still be gained, and the prominence of these views would be exacerbated by the highly prominent introduction of the contemporary additional glazing proposed to the extended garage. 37. I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. This would conflict with Policy QOP 1 of the NLP which seeks for development to make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. It would also not comply with the Framework insofar as it seeks to achieve well-designed and beautiful places. Other Considerations 38. As part of their evidence the appellant has presented a fallback position of extensions and outbuildings they could erect under the allowances of permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). This suggested fallback position includes the erection of a single storey extension to the dwelling as well as a single storey extension to the detached garage. The appellant has also provided details of a large, detached building that could be erected on the appeal site. I have no reason to doubt that the appellant would seek to erect these proposals in the event that planning permission were not forthcoming on the appeal proposal, and I accept this as a fallback position. 39. Due to its larger land take and volume than the appeal proposal I acknowledge that the permitted development fallback scheme would have a greater impact upon the openness of the Green Belt in spatial terms. There is, however, nothing before me to demonstrate the removal of permitted development rights at the appeal site. 40. In the absence of this, if the appeal proposal were to be allowed the appellant would still have the ability to implement other permitted development additions, in particular the large, detached outbuilding presented before me, in addition to the appeal scheme. 41. As such, if allowed, both the appeal scheme and a very significant element of the suggested fallback scheme could be carried out, and I find this would result in greater harm to the openness of the Green Belt than the purported fallback position alone. The suggested harms arising from the appellant’s fallback position would therefore not necessarily be avoided should the appeal be allowed. 42. Consequently, in the absence of a means to prevent the implementation of such permitted development additions, should the appeal be allowed, I find that the appellant’s fall-back position would not present an equivalent or greater degree of harm compared to the appeal scheme and the elements of the fallback that could still be implemented. I therefore afford the apellant’s fallback position limited weight as a material consideration in favour of the appeal proposal. 43. As part of their case the appellant has also provided a personal statement outlining their personal circumstances. This includes their desire to live as a multigenerational family at the site, which is of cultural importance to the appellant, Appeal Decision 6006998 7 and the medical needs of a family member living at the property. The appellant states that the appeal proposal has been designed to facilitate these requirements. 44. As a result I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Both race and disability are relevant protected characteristics to which the PSED applies. 45. I have also considered the rights of the appellant under Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Article 1 of the First Protocol states that every person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their home. Article 8 affords the right to respect for private and family life. Dismissal of the appeal would interfere with the appellant’s rights under both Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8. However, these are qualified rights, and any interference may be justified where it is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society, applying the principle of proportionality. 46. In their statement the appellant has provided details of the different ‘cultural’ ways of living and how the proposal would allow three families to live together at the property and the cultural benefits this would bring. It also details an occupier’s health issues and the need for bedroom / en-suite accommodation on the ground floor due to their condition. 47. These matters are of significant importance to which I afford considerable weight. However, in this instance, the development proposed is permanent and would remain indefinitely regardless of the needs of the future occupiers of the dwelling. Furthermore, I am not persuaded that these requirements could not be provided via an alternative scheme whilst limiting the harms identified. As a result, the requirement to provide additional ground floor accommodation and a property to accommodate three families does not outweigh the harm I have identified to the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the area. 48. The appellant contends that the proposal would make more efficient and effective use of PDL. However, at paragraph 124 the Framework is clear that the effective use of land should safeguard and improve the environment. For the reasons given I have found the proposal would cause harm to the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the area. As such, I find the efficient and effective use of the land carries limited weight in favour of the appeal proposal. 49. The proposal would deliver economic and social benefits through the construction phase and the potential for the additional occupants within the site to support local services and facilities. Nevertheless, given the extent of the development proposed, these would be fairly modest and so carry limited weight. 50. The appellant highlights the ‘test’ in the Framework that, ‘permission should be granted unless…any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’. However, this test is only applicable where Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged, and there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case in this instance. Appeal Decision 6006998 8 Other Matters 51. The evidence before me details that the appeal site is located within the Hadrian’s Wall Military buffer zone of the Frontiers of Roman Empire World Heritage Site (WHS). The Council details that proposals within the buffer zone are expected to seek opportunities to sustain and better reveal the significance of the Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS. 52. In this respect, the Council states that the proposal would not harm the significance of the WHS and based on the information and evidence before me I see no reason to disagree with this assessment. Overall Planning Balance 53. The proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and result in limited harm to the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt. By virtue of paragraph 153 of the Framework this harm attracts substantial weight. Furthermore, the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host property and area, to which I attribute moderate weight. 54. The Framework makes it clear that harm to the Green Belt by reasons of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the development, must be clearly outweighed by other considerations for planning permission to be granted. 55. In this case, I find that although there are other considerations which weigh in favour of the appeal proposal, including giving due regard to the PSED in relation to the personal circumstances of the appellant and their family, the weight of these other considerations does not clearly outweigh the totality of the harm arising to the Green Belt and the harm to the character and appearance of the area. 56. Consequently, the very special circumstances that are necessary to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt do not exist in this case. 57. The harm I have identified to the Green Belt and 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 and occupiers’ rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol or Article 8. Conclusion 58. The proposal would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that the decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J Reed APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 59. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. R Major INSPECTOR