Modifications to existing single -storey projection at front of the property along with single-storey pitched roofed side and flat roofed rear extensions

Appeal Decision by Chris Baxter BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012692 The Haven, Mile Road, Widdrington Station, Northumberland NE61 5QW • 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 Paul Rayner against the decision of Northumberland County Council. • The application Ref is 26/01287/FUL. • The development proposed is described as “modifications to existing single -storey projection at front of the property along with single-storey pitched roofed side and flat roofed rear extensions”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. Since the appeal was submitted a new version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) came into effect, however there are no material changes in policy emphasis relevant to the substance of the appeal. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (i) the character and appearance of the surrounding area and (ii) ecological matters. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The area surrounding the appeal site is characterised predominantly by residential properties. The buildings are mainly bungalows sited in a linear fashion and whilst some have been extended the properties are generally modest in scale with traditional roof forms. It is this modest scale of built form with simple roof structures that contribute positively to the character of the area. 5. The proposed extensions, due to their design and scale, would introduce a complicated built form arrangement that would have an unusual roof form that would be visually intrusive and detract from the existing built development of the surrounding area. The proposals would not appear as a natural evolution of the property and would be an incongruous feature that would have a detrimental effect on the street scene. 6. I have had regard to the design and style of other properties and extensions in the area including the property, Sans Souci, to the east of the site. However, I do not consider extensions on surrounding buildings to be directly comparable to the appeal scheme, particularly with regards to design and roof form. 7. The proposals would be constructed from materials that would be sensitive to the surrounding area. I also acknowledge that the proposals follow a previous planning Appeal Decision 6012692 2 application1 and pre-application advice2. These matters, however, do not alter my findings above and the harm the proposed scheme would have on the character and appearance of the appeal property and surrounding area, due to its design and scale. 8. Accordingly, the proposals would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal would be contrary to Policy QOP 2 and HOU 9 of the Northumberland Local Plan (NLP) which seeks development to preserve the character of the area and be well-related and subordinate in size and massing to the existing dwelling. Ecology 9. The Council have raised concerns that the proposal could have an effect on protected species, identifying bats as a concern given the proposal includes works to the existing roof of the property and also that trees may be affected. The Council indicates that a Preliminary Roost Assessment (PRA) should have been submitted with the proposals. 10. The appellant details that the demolition and replacement of the existing garage has been removed from the scheme, and also that previous bat surveys within the last two years have confirmed the absence of any bat activity. No bat surveys have been submitted with this appeal. 11. In the absence of any bat surveys or PRAs, there is no substantial evidence which convinces me that the proposed development would not have an adverse effect on bats or any other protected species. 12. Insufficient evidence has been submitted which indicates that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on protected species. The proposal would not accord with Policy ENV 2 of the NLP which seeks development proposals affecting protect species to minimise their impact avoiding significant harm through location and/or design. Other Matters 13. The proposed development would not have any adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, nor would it have a detrimental effect on highway safety. These matters do not outweigh the harm I have found on the main issues. Conclusion 14. The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweighs this finding. 15. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Chris Baxter INSPECTOR 1 Ref: 25/03748/FUL 2 Ref: 26/00158/PREAPP