Shiney Row bungalow plans refused over tree impacts and 'overshadowing' fears

Plans for a new home in a Sunderland neighbourhood have been refused by city development chiefs over potential impacts on trees and “overshadowing” fears.

Sunderland City Council’s planning department has 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 land associated with a neighbouring property.

According to planning documents, the application site has been sold and is “no longer part of the garden area of no. 2 Boundary Cottages”.

In recent years, several applications have been made to try and develop the land for housing, including plans for two houses which were withdrawn in 2019.

Plans for a single four-bed dwelling were also refused by Sunderland City Council, with an appeal subsequently dismissed by a Government-appointed planning inspector.

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.

A design and access statement from applicant Persepolis Architecture Ltd said the application had taken comments into account from previous planning decisions.

It was noted that 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”.

Those behind the scheme added the siting and height of the dormer bungalow had been designed to be “even lower than the ridge line of the houses opposite the site”.

During a council consultation exercise on the plan, two public objections were received, raising concerns about the impact on the character of the area, impacts on trees and changes in outlook.

After considering the planning application and assessing it against planning policies, Sunderland City Council’s planning department refused it in October, 2023.

Council planners noted that the “implications” of the development in relation to “green space, visual amenity, highway and pedestrian safety, noise and land contamination” were acceptable.

However, a council decision report listed several reasons for refusal, including existing trees on site creating “overshadowing” impacts on the new home.

Council planners said this would “reduce the outlook from the dwelling and natural light entering the dwelling, to the detriment of the residential amenity of future residents”.

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”.

Council planners said there were concerns about the construction causing “unavoidable damage” to protected trees due to the “significant overhanging of the canopies and the root protection areas within the construction area”.

In addition, council planners said the proposed cottage would “lead to inevitable pressure to fell or undertake regular pruning works to the protected trees at the application site, in order to alleviate issues around overshadowing and dropping leaves, branches, twigs and sap”.

In this context, council planning officers said the development would be “detrimental to the long-term health and amenity value of the trees and their ecological value to the application 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”.

A council decision report added: “It is concluded that the negative effects of the development in relation to the impact on the amenity of the future occupiers of the property, the pressure to prune or remove further trees and potential damage to existing trees due to construction works would be considered as unacceptable”.

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

For more information on the application and council decision, visit Sunderland City Council’s planning portal website and search reference: 23/00970/FUL