Sunderland householder has extension plans refused over privacy and design concerns

Plans for a home extension in a Sunderland neighbourhood have been refused by council development bosses over privacy and design concerns.

Sunderland City Council’s planning department has rejected an application for a property at Windbrook in the Ryhope area.

Applicants had lodged an application with the council for a two-storey side extension partially over the footprint of an existing double garage.

According to council planning documents, the plans aimed to create additional space for the garage and an extra double bedroom and en-suite at first-floor level.

It was proposed that the side extension would project forward of the existing double garage with a gable roof.

During the planning application process, the plans were amended following feedback from the council.

Following a council consultation exercise on the plans, however, two neighbour objections were received raising a number of concerns.

This included overlooking and loss of privacy, a loss of residential amenity and overshadowing.

After considering the planning application and assessing it against planning policies, Sunderland City Council’s planning department refused it on January 31, 2024.

One reason for refusal included the development’s scale, massing and position appearing as an “unsympathetic addition to the subject property and as a highly conspicuous and over dominant form of development within the context of the street scene”.

It was argued that the development would be “detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality and host property”.

Council planners stressed that the extension would be “excessively wide” at first-floor level, appearing as “overly dominant”, as well the development including dormer features that “would not be characteristic of the original dwelling”.

Elsewhere, council planners concluded there would be no “unacceptable impacts” on one neighbouring property in relation to privacy, outlook or overshadowing.

However, council planners noted that windows in the development would impact a different neighbouring property.

It was concluded that the development would be “detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupiers of this neighbouring property by way of a loss of privacy to habitable indoor space”.

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

More information about the plans and council decision can be found via Sunderland City Council’s planning portal website.