South Tyneside Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in South Tyneside?
See which design changes harmed selected proposals and which planting softened a timber boundary fence.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 12 of 24
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 9
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 11
- of 12 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: South Tyneside LPA (54.963536, −1.444264). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
South Tyneside Council appeal findings
Extensions, roof changes and boundary screening
The selected examples include an allowed appeal, but their outcome mix differs slightly from the matched local set.
Counted against appeals
Extensions and roof changes found harmful
Linked side and rear extensions
The side and front extensions harmed character and appearance. The modest rear extension could not be split off because it extended from the side extension.
Side extension harmed the area
The Inspector concluded that the side extension harmed the host dwelling and surrounding area.
Flat-roof bathroom alteration found harmful
The Inspector concluded that the flat-roof bathroom alteration caused unacceptable harm to the area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Boundary screening softened a timber fence
Bush separated the boundary treatments
From the street, a large bush meant the two perimeter enclosures did not read as a continuation of each other.
Trees softened the timber fence
From the front, the open-plan garden and semi-mature tree screened and softened the timber fence.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify harmful side or front additions?
- Does the refusal treat rear work as inseparable from harmful additions?
- Do bushes or trees screen and soften boundary fencing?
Most selected South Tyneside dismissed extracts state a conclusion, not the design detail behind it. 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
13 May 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
Application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary Condition 2 - [name] of Application Number ST/0545/23/HFUL.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the street scene.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
When viewed from the street scene towards the side elevation, there is a large bush that distinctly separates the two forms of boundary enclosure at the property. Therefore, the two forms of perimeter enclosure do not read as a continuation of one into the other. When viewing the dwelling from the front elevation, although the fence extends from the front gable, the open plan garden with a semi-mature tree contributes to mitigating the effects of the timber fence by way of screening and softening its appearance in this location.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
8 October 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, the two-storey side extension and the single-storey front extension would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. However, the single-storey rear extension would be modest in size and scale. It would not affect the roofscape. It would be a subservient addition to the property. The location at the rear would not result in substantial visual harm to the street scene. However, the single-storey rear extension would extend from the rear of the proposed two-storey side extension and is therefore not clearly severable from the appeal development. I am thus unable to issue a split decision in this case.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
19 October 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
flat roof to existing second floor bathroom offshoot with 2 no. rooflights.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, there would be conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy DM1 of the South Tyneside Local Development Framework Development Management Policies (December 2011) which require that development, including extensions, is designed to convey sensitive consideration of its surroundings, and where possible enhance its local setting and reinforce local identity, having particular regard to scale and proportions, alignment, form, use of materials and architectural detailing. The development would also fail to accord with the Council’s guidance given in its adopted SPD9: [name] (revised January 2014) which generally seeks the same outcomes as the development plan but adds detail to the matters to be considered in assessing the merits of proposed extensions to dwellings, and it would conflict with the Framework in respect of achieving well-designed places.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 3
7 January 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to demolish existing single storey side offshot (utility room and shower room). Construct new 2 storey side extension - dining room, W.C, utility room, play room, store and en-suite bedroom and dressing room.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons set out, the side extension would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. As such it fails to comply with the relevant provisions of Policy DM1 (A) of the South Tyneside Local Development Framework (2011) and the relevant sections of the National Planning Policy Framework which both require development to be compatible with the host property and the surrounding area. The proposal would also be contrary to the guidance set out in Part 7 of the [name] within South Tyneside Council (2014) supplementary planning document, which requires all extensions to respect the scale, form, proportions, character and appearance of the main dwelling and the locality.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
11 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a proposed single storey rear extension, porch to front and render to all elevations without complying with a condition attached to planning permission [name]/0509/24/HFUL dated 13 December 2024.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect that varying the condition would have on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. This is contrary to Policy DM1(A) of the South Tyneside Local Development Framework (2007) – Development Management Policies (2011). This requires, amongst other things, that alterations to existing buildings are designed to convey sensitive consideration of their surroundings and reinforce local identity, having particular regard to use of materials. This is in a similar vein to the South Tyneside Supplementary Planning Guidance Document – [name] (SPD9) (2010, revised 2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework insofar as good design that is sympathetic to local character is concerned.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2