Major update on 'unacceptable' plans for new Boldon Colliery house that would cause 'significant harm'

South Tyneside Council’s planning department has refused an application for a property at Kingswood Close, in the Boldon Colliery area.

Plans were submitted last summer (2025) seeking permission for a “single, detached self-build use class C3 dwellinghouse across two storeys, with three bedrooms and the formation of vehicular access onto Cotswold Lane, car parking and garden/curtilage areas.”

The proposals also included the site being “subdivided by a fence to separate the proposed new dwelling from the existing dwelling on the site” and for a “highway verge crossing” to be installed to the proposed new home’s “front boundary onto Cotswold Lane.”

The application follows a previous bid for a family home on the site which was refused by South Tyneside Council’s planning department back in July, 2024, on highway safety grounds because of the site’s location and the creation of a new vehicular access onto Cotswold Lane, described as a “local distributor road.”

Council planners, in a decision report refusing the plan at the time, argued that the “lack of on-site vehicle turning space or visitor parking would result in vehicles having to reverse onto or off the public highway to enter/exit the site” and that there would be an “increased risk of visitor parking on Cotswold Lane arising adjacent to the site”.

Despite additional comments from a transport consultant, the council decision report said highway safety issues could not be “satisfactorily addressed” around the “new vehicular access, manoeuvring and parking at this location.”

The applicant later lodged an appeal against the initial council refusal and a planning inspector was appointed by the Secretary of State to rule on the matter.

An appeal decision report published on March 25, 2025, confirmed that the planning inspector had upheld the council’s original refusal decision and dismissed the appeal.

The planning inspector said that “the complex road layout in the vicinity of the appeal site [and] proposed access arrangements present a degree of risk for road users and pedestrians”, including the proposed driveway “not allowing sufficient space for a vehicle to manoeuvre, especially if two cars were parked on the drive”.

Concerns from the planning inspector also included “reversing manoeuvres in the road”, as well as existing traffic issues and parking impacts, with a conclusion that the plans would “introduce an unacceptable increase in the potential for conflict between road users, prejudicing the highway system.”

Following the appeal decision, applicants resubmitted the plans which still proposed a two-storey property but “with a driveway to the west side of the dwelling leading to a parking area for two vehicles (as opposed to an attached garage with driveway as per the previously refused”, council planning documents state.

Comments from the council’s highways authority said the scheme had been “amended slightly to include […] a larger driveway, including sufficient space to manoeuvre two resident vehicles only” but noted “there is no guarantee that residents will utilise the turning area as designed, and the turning area would not be available for additional visitors or service vehicles.”

A planning, design and access statement submitted on behalf of the applicant said the “proposed car parking area has been relocated from the position at the front under the previous scheme, which was dismissed at appeal, to now enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear by providing a turning head to the rear”.

It was argued that “independent highways consultancy survey and analysis had evaluated and re-evaluated matters and concludes the single additional access, with such a revised layout, can be created without any tangible adverse impacts on highways safety or amenity.”

However, the council’s highway authority, which maintained its objection to the plan, said the resubmitted application did not address concerns previously raised by a planning inspector at appeal, including “concerns regarding highway safety matters pertaining to the vehicular access, vehicles associated with visitors and deliveries, location of bus stops and junction opposite, and pedestrian safety at the adjacent zebra crossing”.

The council’s highways authority said, in this context, there were a number of “highway safety concerns outstanding and unresolved.”

During a council public consultation exercise on the plans there were seven representations in objection raising a number of concerns, including highway safety, the new access to Cotswold Lane “setting a precedent” and the lack of “dedicated visitor or delivery parking”.

One objector comment noted Cotswold Lane had “been deliberately designed and managed to carry through traffic with minimal interruption” and that the proposed access to the new home at a “highly sensitive part of this road” would “introduce an unacceptable increase in the potential for conflict between road users, prejudicing the highway system.”

The resubmitted planning application also attracted one representation in support, summarised in a council report, stating that there is “no problem with the application” and that the “road is quiet enough for this addition.”

After considering the resubmitted planning application, South Tyneside Council’s planning department refused it on February 2, 2026.

Council planners, in a decision report, concluded the “proposal would result in significant harm to highways safety”.

The council decision report adds: “The proposed development would have a means of access onto Cotswold Lane which is a local distributor road that does not at present have direct vehicle access to it from individual dwellings, the site access is also in close proximity to a priority junction opposite, a zebra crossing and a bus stop.

“The addition of an access in this location and the vehicle movements associated with the proposed dwelling, would result in conflicts between all road users.

“Visitor parking would result in vehicles having to reverse onto the public highway to enter/exit the site and an increased risk of visitor parking on Cotswold Lane adjacent to the site.

“In light of such prevailing highway conditions and bearing in mind the restricted visibility of vehicles and pedestrians on the surrounding highway arising from such vehicle movements and parking it is considered that unacceptable harm to highway safety would arise from this development.”

The applicant has the right to challenge the council’s refusal decision by lodging an appeal with the Secretary of State.

More information about the planning application and appeal decision can be found via South Tyneside Council’s planning portal website.