Demolition of garage, two storey side extension and pitched roof to rear offshoot

Appeal Decision by Chris Baxter BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6013638 32, Crawhall Crescent, Morpeth NE61 2RH • 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 Louise Fowler against the decision of Northumberland County Council. • The application Ref is 26/00997/FUL. • The development proposed is described as “demolition of garage, two storey side extension and pitched roof to rear offshoot”. 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 living conditions of occupiers of 30 Crawhall Crescent with regards to outlook and overbearing effects; and (ii) ecological matters. Reasons Living conditions 4. The proposed development would introduce a large expanse of built development onto the boundary with 30 Crawhall Crescent (No 30) that would appear as a dominant and intrusive feature when viewed from the rear windows and garden area of No 30. Due to the scale, design and siting of the proposed extension as well as the positioning of the properties, the proposal would have an overbearing appearance that would adversely affect the outlook of the neighbouring occupiers of No 30. 5. Accordingly, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 30 with regards to outlook and overbearing effects. The proposal would be contrary to Policies QOP 2 and HOU 9 of the Northumberland Local Plan (NLP) and Policy Des1 of the Morpeth Neighbourhood Plan (MNP) which seeks extensions to not have a significant adverse impact on amenity of adjoining properties. Ecology 6. The Council Ecologist details that the proposals include impacts to the existing buildings which have not been assessed for potential to support roosting bats, and Appeal Decision 6013638 2 therefore a Preliminary Roost Assessment (PRA) is required. A PRA has not been submitted. Minimal evidence has been submitted which convinces me that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on protected species. 7. There is insufficient evidence which indicates that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on protected species. The proposed development would not accord with Policy ENV 2 of the NLP and Des1 and Env5 of the MNP which seeks development proposals affecting protected species to minimise their impact avoiding significant harm through location and/or design. Other Matters 8. I have had regard to the appellants statement of case which details comments from the Officer report and indicating that an amended scheme could have been acceptable. My assessment and findings of harm is based on the plans that were refused by the Council. 9. The appellant has concerns that the Council have acted unfairly in how it has dealt with the application including matters on amended plans, requirement for ecology surveys, the need for an ecology refusal reason and communication between the parties including early engagement and constructive working. These matters, however, do not alter my findings and the harm I have found on the main issues. Conclusion 10. 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. 11. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Chris Baxter INSPECTOR