Erection of a single storey garage to side/rear

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 February 2026 by F Harrison BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001650 5 South View, Roker, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear SR6 9JS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Adam Smith against the decision of Sunderland City Council. • The application Ref is 25/01483/FUL. • The development proposed is the erection of a single storey garage to side/rear. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The description of development in the banner heading above has been taken from the decision notice as this succinctly describes the development. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 4 South View, with regard to outlook and daylight/sunlight. Reasons 4. The proposal would be of a significant length in proximity to the shared boundary and would result in a noticeable difference in the built form above the boundary treatment from the nearest ground floor windows at No4. It would appear as a dominant and oppressive feature and owing to the limited separation from the shared boundary the extent of the solid, blank brick wall visible above the boundary treatment the proposal would create an uninviting outlook for the occupiers of No 4, indicative of the dominant development at the site arising from the proposal’s scale. 5. The ground floor windows at No 4 are north facing, limiting the amount of direct sunlight the rooms will receive. For the same reasons set out above, the increased built form at the shared boundary would discernibly reduce the amount of daylight/sunlight reaching the ground floor windows nearest to the shared boundary, to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupiers of this property. 6. The single storey design would be well below the eaves height of the surrounding properties and not dissimilar in height to a typical outbuilding. The proposal has been designed to ensure practical headroom and adequate functional space for vehicle access and storage, making efficient use of the available land at the site. Nevertheless, the extensive length and limited set back from the shared boundary would not result in a high standard of amenity for neighbouring occupiers. The use Appeal Decision 6001650 2 of complementary materials would not mitigate the harm identified and while there is existing mature planting at the shared boundary this is not on land within the appellant’s ownership and so cannot be relied upon to screen the proposal. 7. I did not observe any outbuildings and garages of a similar size to the proposal in the appeal site location. In any event, I have considered this appeal proposal on its own merits and concluded that it would cause harm for the reasons set out above. Given the proximity of the proposal to the shared boundary it is difficult to see how landscaping at the appeal site could be effective in minimising the visual effects of the proposal and there is little certainty that a boundary treatment tall enough to screen the proposal would not have a similarly detrimental effect on outlook and daylight/and sunlight as the proposal. 8. To conclude, the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 4, with regard to outlook and daylight/sunlight and would be in conflict with Policy BH1 of the Core Strategy and Development Plan 2015-2033 (2020) insofar as this policy requires development to maintain a good standard of amenity for all existing occupiers of land and buildings. Conclusion 9. My above findings bring the proposal into conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. F Harrison INSPECTOR