Bid for ‘harmful’ extension to Cleadon home refused for a second time by Government watchdog following appeal

Earlier this year, South Tyneside Council’s planning department received an application for a property in Charlton Grove, in Cleadon.

According to planning documents, the scheme included additions to an existing single-storey rear extension, creating an ‘L-shaped’ extension of the same height.

However, after the potential visual impact on neighbours was raised, development chiefs refused the proposals in July.

It was claimed the development would cause “substantial harm” to a neighbouring property due to the “increased dominance” and overshadowing impacts.

It was also noted a side extension would be “harmful to the visual amenity of the area, failing to convey sensitive consideration of its surroundings”.

The applicant later lodged an appeal the Government’s Planning Inspectorate, but this was dismissed in September, upholding Tyneside Council’s original refusal.

In a report, the Planning Inspectorate said the scheme would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host building and wider street scene.

But assessors did believe the proposed ground floor rear extension would “tip the balance of acceptability by being unduly overbearing”, as well as reducing outlook and increasing overshadowing.

This was due to the “significant increase in the scale of built development on the party boundary”.

Although no objections were raised by neighbours about the development, the planning inspector said “this does not mean that the appeal proposal would not be harmful to living conditions during its lifetime”.

The planning inspector added: “I have arrived at differing conclusions in respect to the acceptability of the components which make up the particular appeal scheme.

“However, as these are interconnected with one another, I am unable to exercise the discretionary powers available to me […] to split my decision.

“The matters which weigh in favour of the particular appeal proposal do not outweigh the identified conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole.

“Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.”

The full appeal decision report can be found on the Planning Inspectorate’s website by searching appeal reference: APP/A4520/D/22/3304206