Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused for harming local character in Tameside Metropolitan?
See what selected local decisions say about street gaps, repeated extensions and matching design.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 35 of 54
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 28
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 34
- of 35 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: Tameside LPA (53.477493, −2.062804). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council appeal findings
Tameside street gaps and side-extension design
Some extracts state only the conclusion, and the dropped-kerb example is less directly relevant to house-extension design.
Counted against appeals
What harmed Tameside street character
Upper-floor gaps gave spaciousness
A road of similar semi-detached homes was described as spacious because upper-floor gaps and setbacks remained consistent.
Repeated works could erode character
On an unusually consistent road, the Inspector said repeated similar works would erode its distinctive quality. A corner-plot comparison had few similarities.
Dropped kerb: harm concluded
The dropped-kerb decision concluded that the proposal would harm the area’s character and appearance, without giving the earlier analysis.
Helped or needed
What helped the allowed side extension
Matching design and smaller scale
The allowed extension was found to use matching style and materials, stay subordinate in scale and avoid a terracing effect.
Setback was not decisive
Despite not being set back as specified, the Inspector concluded that the extension would not harm the area’s character or appearance or detract from the street scene.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify upper-floor gaps or unusual spacing along your road?
- Does it explain whether your extension matches existing style, materials and scale?
- Are cited comparison properties genuinely similar in plot position to your site?
The dropped-kerb extract gives only a conclusion, so it offers limited help on extension design. 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
30 September 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a two storey side extension and single storey front extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. It would accord with saved policies C1 and H10 of Tameside Unitary Development Plan Adopted November 2004 which require, among other things, that proposals complement and respect the character https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/G4240/D/24/3346683 and appearance and pattern of the settlement. The side extension would not be set back in accordance with the requirements of policy RED5 of the Tameside Residential Design Supplementary Planning [name] 2010 (SPD). Nevertheless, it would accord with the aims of SPD policies RED1 and RED5 including in terms of matching style and materials, subordinate scale, avoiding a terracing effect and not detracting from the street scene. The decision notice also refers to conflict with the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Adopted March 2024 but I am not aware of conflict in this regard. The proposal would not conflict with the design aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).
Paragraph 10 · Source pages 2, 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
11 December 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a dropped kerb.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
On that basis the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such it would be contrary to Policy C1 of the UDP which expects the distinct settlement pattern, open space features and townscape character, amongst other things, to be understood; the value of the surrounding fabric to be respected and the relationship between buildings and their settings be given particular attention, and Policy H10 which requires development to complement or enhance the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
9 June 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a side extension to replace existing prefabricated garage with a proposed first floor bedroom.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
[address] is an established residential street and includes brick built semi-detached dwellings of similar design and appearance. Each is set well back from the main road and, in the main, there is a consistency of gaps between buildings at upper floor level. These attributes give the immediate area a sense of design synergy and spaciousness. They add positively and distinctively to the character and appearance of the locality.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
27 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a first floor side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Given all of the above, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to the Council’s Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document (2012), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
10 January 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of an existing garage and erection of a two storey side extension and a single storey extension to part of the rear.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
It is suggested that there are examples in Tameside where the specific advice within the SPD has not been enforced. Details of [address] have been provided. That property is on a corner plot and clearly has few similarities with the appeal proposal. The appellant also suggests that the potential for other residents to carry out such works should not be considered and the application should be considered only on its own merits. I have found that it would harm the character and appearance of the area and conflict with the development plan and the SPD. However, it is also important that decisions are consistent when all other matters remain the same. The existing consistency of development within this road is unusual for properties of this age. If repeated, similar works would erode the distinctive quality of [address] to its detriment. Whilst the proposal must be considered on its own merits, this is a matter that adds to my main concern in this particular case.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2