Appeal 3311338
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
5 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
demolish existing single storey rear conservatory, construct new first floor side extension over existing garage/sun lounge (en-suite bedroom extension). Construct new single storey kitchen/family/dining room extension to rear with associated alterations to door/window arrangements of roof, with 3no. roof lights. Change existing hipped roof to porch/garage to 'lean to' roof.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached house that has previously been extended at ground floor level. It is on a corner plot in a residential area characterised by similar semi-detached properties finished in brick with tiled gabled roofs. The similar styles of properties and the regular separation and set back from [address] results in a relatively spacious, consistent, and harmonious character and appearance.
The proposed first-floor extension would disrupt the consistent building line along [address] and its incongruous hipped pitched roof design would draw the eye, would not sit comfortably with the predominance of gable roofs adjacent to it and would look harmfully out of place on this prominent corner plot. Consequently, due to its siting and design the proposal would be a discordant feature that would detract from the otherwise harmonious character and appearance of the area
While the existing ground floor side extension projects beyond the building line along [address], it is largely screened by the boundary treatment and is not a conspicuous feature in the street scene. However, I observed during my site visit that there is an absence of two storey extensions immediately around the appeal site.
I have considered the examples of existing two-storey extensions, of which there are a large number, and therefore a feature of the wider area. The context of the examples differs in overall appearance and relationship with the street scene. They are on different streets, would not be seen with the appeal scheme and as such are not directly comparable. As such, a decision to refuse permission at the appeal site would not be inconsistent with other decisions that have been taken in the area.
Overall, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, in conflict with Policy DM1 A) of the South Tyneside Local Development Framework Development Management Policies (2011). This policy, amongst other things, seeks development of a design that conveys a sensitive consideration of its surroundings.
The proposal would be contrary to guidance set out in SPD 9: [name] (2010, revised 2014) which advises that side extensions can have a particularly significant impact on the street scene and on corner plots, and should not interrupt consistent building lines where present in the street. It is also contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) in Section 12 regarding the need to achieve well designed places.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 3895No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 30 January 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 10 January 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3311338
- Application reference
- ST/0804/22/HFUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- South Tyneside Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000023
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 23 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 17 November 2022
- Valid date
- 17 November 2022
- Start date
- 23 November 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 15 November 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 30 January 2023
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 27297
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21