Government inspector overturns council planning permission refusal after finding no ‘conflict’ with rules

Last year, South Tyneside Council’s planning department refused a householder application for works to a property in Iona Road, in the local authority’s Bede ward, in Jarrow.

The bid sought permission for a two-storey side extension, but this was turned down by borough development chiefs over concerns it would “result in significant harm to the visual amenity of the area”.

Following the council refusal, the applicant lodged an appeal and a planning inspector was appointed to rule on the matter.

After considering representations from all parties, the planning inspector decided in favour of the appeal and to grant planning permission for the extension.

An appeal decision report, published earlier this year, said the proposal would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the property, or of the house next door or the the wider street scene, in terms of scale and design.

The planning inspector also concluded that the proposal would not “straddle beyond the prevailing building line” of nearby streets and that a “reasonable level of private outdoor space would be retained”.

As a result, according to the planning inspector’s findings, the proposal would “not have a cramped disposition within the plot” and as a result was not considered to be in “conflict with the objectives” of the government’s guidelines.

The appeal decision report goes on to say: “By its very nature, the proposed sideways extension would change the balance and symmetry of this pair of semi-detached properties.

“However, an appropriate degree of symmetry and rhythm with the host property, the adjoining dwelling and the wider street scene would still be attained.

“Consequently, the appeal proposal would not represent an excessively large, disproportionately scaled or unduly dominant feature within this particular street scene.

“Neither would it disturb the pattern of built development here to an extent that would be visually intrusive.

“Overall, this particular combination of circumstances will adequately distract attention from the appeal proposal’s more generous width.”

The full appeal decision report can be found on the Planning Inspectorate’s website by searching appeal reference: APP/A4520/D/21/3288102