'Over-dominant' house extension in South Shields dismissed at appeal

Last year, South Tyneside Council’s planning department received a householder application for a property off Summerhill Road in the Harton area.

This included plans to construct a first floor side extension over an existing single-storey side extension and to demolish an existing rear conservatory and build a rear extension in its place.

After assessing the application against planning policies however, South Tyneside Council’s planning department refused it on November 15, 2022.

Concerns included the first floor side extension appearing as an “incongruous, overdominant and out of character feature in the streetscene and in relation to the pair of semi-detached dwellings of which it forms part”.

Following the ruling, the applicant lodged an appeal and a planning inspector was appointed by the Secretary of State to rule on the matter.

After considering representations from both the council and the appellant, the planning inspector sided with council planners and dismissed the appeal on January 30, 2023.

A public decision report ruled the plans would “harm the character and appearance of the area” in conflict with council policies and guidance.

This included guidance around householder developments which advises that side extensions can have a “particularly significant impact on the street scene and on corner plots, and should not interrupt consistent building lines where present in the street”.

The planning inspector’s report added: “The proposed first-floor extension would disrupt the consistent building line along Summerhill Road and its incongruous hipped pitched roof design would draw the eye, would not sit comfortably with the predominance of gable roofs adjacent to it and would look harmfully out of place on this prominent corner plot.

“Consequently, due to its siting and design the proposal would be a discordant feature that would detract from the otherwise harmonious character and appearance of the area”.

An appellant statement, published on South Tyneside Council’s website, claimed South Tyneside Council’s planning department were “not following a consistent interpretation of their own guidance” and that there were other approved extensions locally “which could be considered overdominant”.

The statement referenced extensions at a number of streets in South Shields which, it claimed, clashed with council policy around extensions “beyond any established building line”.

However the planning inspector’s report stated that the context of the examples provided “differed in overall appearance and relationship with the street scene”.

The planning inspector’s report added: “They are on different streets, would not be seen with the appeal scheme and as such are not directly comparable.

“As such, a decision to refuse permission at the appeal site would not be inconsistent with other decisions that have been taken in the area”.

The full appeal decision report can be found on the national Planning Inspectorate’s website.