Ground floor rear extension, alterations to front elevation and roof, and new access

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 August 2026 by K Lancaster BA (hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011451 8 Lynwood Close, Darras Hall, Ponteland, Newcastle upon Tyne NE20 9JG • 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 Mr Darab Rezai against the decision of Northumberland County Council. • The application Ref is 26/01165/FUL. • The development proposed is a ground floor rear extension, alterations to front elevation and roof, and new access. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. A new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. As this could affect the issues and matters in this case, the Council and the appellant were invited to make further comments. My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework, and the responses received on it. 3. The appeal submission includes additional evidence which was not before the Council at the time of its decision. This includes a Daytime Walkover Survey. The Procedural Guide states that it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what was considered by the local planning authority, and on which interested people’s views were sought. 4. I have considered this additional information taking into consideration the principles established by the Courts in Holborn Studios Ltd1. In this case, the additional information provides further evidence in relation to the Council’s reasons for refusal, rather than significant amendments to the proposal. For this reason, I consider that there would be no prejudice to any party, and I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of this additional information. Main Issue 5. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area; and • protected species. 1 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin) Appeal Decision 6011451 2 Reasons 6. The appeal site, 8 Lynwood Close, comprises a detached, chalet style bungalow. The surrounding area is characterised by detached dwellings, predominantly chalet bungalows and two-storey houses, set within generous, well-landscaped plots. Despite some variation in building form and appearance arising from extensions and redevelopment, the area retains a spacious, verdant and low- density suburban character, with mature vegetation and generous spacing between properties making an important contribution to its appearance. 7. The proposal comprises the extension and substantial remodelling of the existing dwelling, including a two-storey front extension, a single-storey rear extension, alterations to the vehicular access and frontage, and the replacement of the existing roof with a new multi-gabled roof structure. Taken together, these works would materially increase the scale, bulk and visual prominence of the dwelling. As a result, the proposal would fail to respect the relatively simple form and proportions of the host property and would appear unduly dominant within the street scene. 8. Whilst extensions, alterations and redevelopment are not uncommon on Lynwood Close and within Darras Hall more widely, the scale and extent of the proposed works would transform the host dwelling to such a degree that it would bear little resemblance to its original design or to comparable neighbouring properties. As a result, the proposal would result in an incongruous and unsympathetic form of development. 9. My attention has been drawn to examples of two-storey houses, including 2 Lynwood Close and 48 Lindon Close both of which are close to the appeal site. However, whilst this is not disputed, the appeal site sits within a row of similarly designed chalet style bungalows. These examples of two-storey properties are located close together and where there is greater variety in both the height and style of the dwellings. Accordingly, the presence of two-storey dwelling within the wider area does not alter my above findings. 10. The appellant states that significant weight should be afforded to the existence of permitted development rights, which could allow substantial extensions or outbuildings to be erected without the need for planning permission. However, no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that development which could be carried out under permitted development rights would result in a similar or greater degree of harm than the appeal proposal. Consequently, I attach only limited weight to this consideration. 11. I acknowledge the appellant’s desire to provide enlarged accommodation for his extended family and improve the condition of the dwelling. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that these objectives could not be achieved through a less harmful form of development. 12. For these reasons, I find that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Policies HOU 9 and QOP 2 of the Northumberland Local Plan 2016-2036, which, amongst other matters, require development to preserve local character and for residential extensions to respect the design of the host dwelling and remain subordinate in scale and massing. Appeal Decision 6011451 3 13. It would also conflict with Policies PNP 2 and PNP 4 of the Ponteland Neighbourhood Plan, which seek high-quality development that makes a positive contribution to its surroundings and respects the established character and appearance of Darras Hall. Protected Species 14. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations) impose a duty on me to consider whether European Protected Species, including bats, would likely be affected by the proposed development. 15. A Daytime Walkover Survey has been provided with the appeal which identified the appeal property as having moderate suitability for bats and negligible suitability for nesting birds. On this basis, it recommended that two bat presence/absence surveys should be undertaken in the period May to September with at least one of the surveys between May and August. These surveys have not been undertaken. 16. The appellant has suggested that the recommend surveys could be secured by condition and has provided suggested wording. However, Government guidance2 makes clear that the presence or absence of protected species, together with the likely effects of a proposal upon them, should be established prior to the determination of a planning application. In the absence of such information, there would be a risk of granting planning permission without a proper understanding of the proposal's ecological implications, contrary to the precautionary approach embodied in the Habitats Regulations. 17. Consequently, in the absence of the further ecological surveys recommended in the Daytime Walkover Survey, the potential impacts of the development on protected species has not been adequately assessed. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would avoid harm to protected species. Thus, the proposal would not comply with Policies ENV1 and ENV2 of the NLP, which require amongst other things, development proposals to properly assess impacts on protected species and their habitats, avoid harm where possible, and apply the mitigation hierarchy where impacts cannot be avoided. Planning Balance and Conclusion 18. Policy S3 of the Framework establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development. As the site lies within a settlement, Policy S4 indicates that development should be approved unless its benefits are substantially outweighed by adverse effects when assessed against the Framework's national decision- making policies. 19. The development would facilitate the substantial extension and remodelling of an existing dwelling, resulting in a modernised home with associated improvements to its energy efficiency and environmental performance. The development would also provide additional accommodation, enabling the property to better meet the needs of its occupants. However, these benefits relate primarily to the living conditions and circumstances of the occupiers and therefore attract only limited weight in my overall assessment. 2 ODPM Circular 06/2005, Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (Paragraph 99) Appeal Decision 6011451 4 20. Against this, I have found that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. This is contrary to Policy DP3(1) of the Framework, which states that development proposals should respond to their context (the history, character and features of their site and its setting), so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings. Policy DP3(3) of the Framework states that development proposals should be refused if they conflict with these principles. Therefore, I attach substantial weight to this harm. 21. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would avoid harm to protected species. As such, the proposal would conflict with Policy N2(1)(f) of the Framework, which requires development to minimise adverse effects on biodiversity and support priority and threatened species. I attach substantial weight to this harm. 22. Taking these points together, the benefits of granting planning permission would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies of the Framework. 23. Consequently, the proposed development would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. K Lancaster INSPECTOR