Rear extension to form enlarged kitchen area

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 June 2026 by J Reed MPlan MRTPI Decision by C McDonagh BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009590 51 Sidecliff Road, Roker, Sunderland SR6 9JR • 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 Keir Gray against the decision of Sunderland City Council. • The application Ref is 25/02838/FUL. • The development proposed is rear extension to form enlarged kitchen area. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters 3. On 17 August 2026, a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published by the Government. This is a material consideration in the decision-making process from the day of publication. As the changes made do not affect the main issue in this appeal it was not necessary to seek the views of the main parties. 4. I note the submission of amended plans by the appellant during the application. For the avoidance of doubt, I have based my recommendation off the plans that the Council determined the application against as clarified in the decision notice. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of 53 Sidecliff Road with particular regard to outlook. Reasons for the Recommendation 6. The appeal dwelling is a two-storey terraced property with a two-storey outrigger to its rear as well as a modest yard area. One of its directly attached neighbours is 53 Sidecliff Road (No.53) and the properties are separated by a brick wall with their respective yard areas situated either side of the boundary. 7. The appeal proposal is to erect a flat roofed single storey extension with a sky lantern to the area of yard directly abutting the appeal dwelling’s rear elevation. The proposed extension would extend along and above the boundary shared with No.53. From the information before me and my observations onsite, the outlook Appeal Decision 6009590 2 from the ground floor rear and side windows and the rear yard of No.53 were limited due to a combination of the height of the two-storey outriggers, the boundary wall and the properties close relationship. 8. The appeal scheme would result in a blank, featureless wall against the common boundary and due to its depth, it would dominate views from the rear windows of No.53. The proposed extension would result in a strong sense of enclosure when coupled with the existing effect from No.53’s two storey outrigger. This cumulative visual dominance would unacceptably reduce outlook from both the neighbour’s windows and the garden space to the immediate rear of No.53 to the detriment of the living conditions of its users. 9. I take on board the appellant’s argument that there is already a brick wall separating the gardens of the appeal building and No.53. However, this is significantly lower than the total height of the proposed extension and thus would not sufficiently mitigate its adverse effects as I have explained them. The occupiers of No.53 have not objected to the appeal scheme, but this would not obviate the need for an assessment as to its effects in the context of the main issue. 10. I note the intentionality of the flat roofed design in order to minimalize the extensions height as well as the presence of planting on the boundary. I observed on my site visit that the boundary planting did not extend along the full depth of the proposed extension resulting in the proposed extension still being visible even with its flat roofed design. Furthermore, the boundary planting could be removed at any point which would increase the extensions prominence. While the proposed development may not impact the neighbouring occupant’s access to daylight and sunlight this does not alleviate my concerns in regard to outlook as outlined above. 11. The proposed development would therefore be unacceptably harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of 53 Sidecliff Road with particular regard to outlook. As such it would fail to comply with Policy BH1 of the Sunderland City Council Core Strategy and Development Plan 2015 – 2033 (2020). This seeks amongst other things for development to provide a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupiers of land and buildings. The proposal would also conflict with policy L2 of the Framework which seeks to ensure acceptable living standards for residents and neighbours. 12. The proposed development would also fail to accord with the guidance set out in the Council’s Development Management Supplementary Planning Document which advises that single-storey rear extensions which have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of neighbouring properties will be resisted. Conclusion and Recommendation 13. The proposals would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations worthy of sufficient weight to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is dismissed. J Reed APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Appeal Decision 6009590 3 Inspector’s Decision 14. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. C McDonagh INSPECTOR