Appeal dismissed over roof works branded 'uncharacteristic and obtrusive' in Penshaw street

Sunderland City Council’s planning department had refused a householder application for works to a property in Lambton Terrace in the Penshaw area to increase the size of an existing dormer window.

It was turned down over concerns it would “introduce an uncharacteristic and obtrusive feature to the street”.

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.

After considering representations from all parties, the planning inspector decided to dismiss the appeal and upheld the council’s decision to refuse planning permission for the roof works.

The key issues raised by the planning inspector included the proposed dormer window appearing “obtrusive within the area” and “harming the character and appearance of the host property and the area”.

This was due to its size and design, which the planning inspector said would “dominate the front elevation, overwhelm the roof and appear as an incongruous feature that would detract from the character and appearance of the host property and row of terraces”.

An appeal decision report, published earlier this month, noted the property sits in part of the terrace which “retains the traditional character” of the area and that new proposals would “significantly alter the appreciation of this largelyunaltered section of more traditional cottages.”

The appeal decision report also referenced the appellent’s case that the roof works would provide an additional bedroom and an improved environment for children.

However the planning inspector said this must be balanced with the “adverse impacts of the proposal” and that there was “insufficient evidence before me to justify the size and scale of the development”.

The appeal decision report added: “Having regard to the legitimate and well-established planning policy aims to protect the character and appearance of the area, in this case I consider that greater weight attaches to the public interest.

“Dismissal of the appeal is therefore necessary and proportionate, and it would not result in a violation of the human rights of the appellant’s family.

“Therefore, there are no material considerations that would lead me to a decision other than in accordance with the development plan in this case”.

The full appeal decision report can be found on the Planning Inspectorate’s website by searching reference: APP/J4525/D/22/3304224