Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Redcar and Cleveland?
See which proposal features inspectors found harmful or acceptable in the selected examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 14 of 24
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 13
- of 14 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Redcar and Cleveland LPA (54.565464, −1.044465). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council appeal findings
When extensions looked out of place in Redcar and Cleveland
The selected examples lean more toward dismissed decisions than the matched local set. Some extracts give only conclusions.
Counted against appeals
Bulky or incongruous extensions
Bulk, size and shape jarred
A loft conversion’s bulk, size and shape were found visually incongruous in the street scene.
A broad side extension upset balance
Although it was set back with a lower ridge, a side extension almost as wide as the house was found bulky and unbalancing.
Conclusion-only extracts lacked detail
The front-dormer and detached-garage extracts call the proposals harmful or incongruous, but give no detailed design analysis.
Helped or needed
What helped the garage extension
Position and design read sympathetically
The host garage’s street position and the extension’s design were part of the basis for finding a sympathetic addition.
It did not dominate the street
The Inspector found the garage extension would not be harmfully dominant or overbearing in the street scene.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice identify bulk, size, shape or width?
- Does it explain why your proposal would look incongruous in the street?
- Do your plans show position, design and relationship to the original building?
The selected examples cover garages, dormers and a side extension, rather than every proposal type in Redcar and Cleveland. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
1 example
14 May 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
for alterations and extensions to garage including pitched roof and dormer extensions to form first floor office space/games room.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, given the variety of properties on [address], the host garage’s position within the street and the extension’s design, the proposal would be a sympathetic addition to the street scene and it would not be harmfully dominant or overbearing. Consequently, the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area would be acceptable.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
13 August 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
loft conversion including rear and side dormer extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, I conclude that the proposal, due to its bulk, size and shape would be visually incongruous in the street scene and would therefore have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As a result, it would be contrary to the aims of parts (j) and (k) of Policy SD4 of the Local Plan, paragraph 2.24 of the Council’s Residential Extensions and [name] and relevant sections of the National Planning Policy Framework regarding good design.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
4 February 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘proposed dormer to the front elevation.’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the and the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy SD4 of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan, adopted May 2018. This which requires development in general to meet design principles to ensure that it respects or enhances the character of the site and its surroundings. It would also conflict with the aims of the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document which seeks to ensure dormer windows reflect the architectural character of the existing building.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
23 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a detached garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the proposal would be an incongruous addition which would harm the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings in conflict with Policy SD4 of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan 2018 which seeks to ensure that development is of a high standard.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
3 February 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
two storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would introduce a two-storey side extension with materials to match existing. It would be set back from the original property with a lower ridge height. Nevertheless, the extension would not appear subservient owing to the width of the proposal which would be almost as wide as the original property. The proposal exceeds the guidance in The Residential Extensions and [name] (2013) which advises that side extensions should have a width no greater than half the width of the original dwelling. While the SPD may produce a guide, rather than absolute requirement, the width of the proposed extension would be a bulky addition, unbalancing the pair of semi-detached dwellings and the otherwise harmonious character and appearance of the area, and would thereby appear incongruous.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2