Appeal dismissed over controversial bungalow plan in Sunderland neighbourhood

Plans for a new home in a Sunderland neighbourhood have been refused at appeal by a Government-appointed planning inspector.

Back in 2023, Sunderland City Council’s planning department refused an application for land near the Boundary Cottages in the Shiney Row area.

The site sits near Golf Course Road and Chester Road and was originally an area of garden associated with a neighbouring property, but has since been sold, according to planning documents.

Several bids for housing on the land have been made in recent years, including plans for two houses which were withdrawn, and plans for a four-bed dwelling which was refused by the city council and subsequently dismissed at appeal.

The latest plans for the site were submitted in April, 2023, and proposed the construction of a three-bedroom ‘dormer style bungalow’ with two car parking spaces.

Those behind the scheme stressed no trees were proposed to be “taken out” and that the proposal’s location was chosen “in the area with least of tree routes to be affected”.

However, the plans were refused by Sunderland City Council over concerns existing trees on site would create “overshadowing” impacts on the new home.

It was also argued that the planning application had not demonstrated the development could be constructed “without causing harm to the protected trees at the site”.

Although it was noted some recommendations had been put forward to reduce impacts on trees, council planners said the measures would “only minimise harm and not eliminate it”.

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

In an appeal decision issued on March 25, 2024, the planning inspector upheld the council’s refusal decision and dismissed the appeal.

The planning inspector said the plans would have “significant implications for the retention and health of protected trees, which would undermine the positive contribution that the trees make and therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the area”.

This included “likely future pressure, post-development, for theremoval or pruning of trees within the site”.

The appeal decision report said the construction of the new home “may cause unavoidable damage to the protected trees” and that no “compelling evidence” had been provided to demonstrate the development would “not cause harm to the viability of protected trees”.

It was also noted that the development would “fail to provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to outlook and light”.

The appeal decision report adds: “It is not disputed that the retained trees would, by virtue of their height, density, and proximity to the proposed dwelling result in large parts of the site being overshadowed for much of the day.

“This would also reduce the amount of light entering the dwelling to the detriment of the living conditions of the future occupiers.

“The proximity and size of these trees would also be likely to dominate the outlook from some windows and particularly when in full leaf.

“In addition, there is also a high probability of dropped leaves, sap and branches dropping onto the roof of the property and into the garden areas”.

The site was the subject of a previous appeal decision for a dwelling, which was dismissed.

While this separate appeal decision was referenced by the planning inspector, it was noted that the two schemes were “materially different”.

The appeal decision report adds: “The previous scheme would have involved the removal of a number of trees within the site, mostly located along the boundary with Chester Road.

“The primary difference between the proposal and the previous scheme is that all of the trees within the appeal site would be retained”.

More information on the latest appeal decision can be found on the Planning Inspectorate’s website.