Beadnell bungalow extension given green light despite objections from local residents

The applicant had reapplied for permission to build the single-storey extension to their home on the Longstone estate after permission was rejected in February.

It was argued that the previous proposals would “fail to respect local context and the character of the area”.

As a result the design has been updated, with patio doors replaced by windows, and all the new windows matching those on the host building.

Officers believed those changes had improved the quality of the design, with the L-shaped property infilled to create a square home. However, Coun Geoff Martindale, chairman of Beadnell Parish Council, disagreed with the assesment of officers and urged the committee to refuse the plans.

He said: “This would alter the local context and character of the east. The AONB do not support the application because the extension is considered too large and is contrary to the design of the building group.

“This application is a re-submmission of an application considered in February. The parish council is objecting again for the same reasons.”

Coun Martindale also pointed out that the 36 houses, which were built in 1968, were subject to an agreement between the developer and the borough of Berwick which meant that they could not be altered in this way.

However, council officers informed members that this was not considered to be a material planning decision, with 19 of the chalets in the area having been added too since the 60s.

Coun Guy Renner Thompson, who represents the Bamburgh ward, proposed refusal and pointed out that the Beadnell neighbourhood plan contained policies to ensure the estate didn’t change “anymore”.

However, Coun Jeff Watson disagreed. The Amble West with Warkworth councillor said: “I’ve read the report and I can’t see why we wouldn’t pass it. We have seen that there are lots of other additions on this estate.

“It’s a very good, small extension. I can’t think for the life of me why I would object to it.”

Coun Renner Thompson’s motion was voted down by five votes to three, with the committee voting to approve the plans by the same margin.