Described on the planning application form as a ‘Proposed two-storey side extension and rear single storey extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 August 2026 by A Hartley, LLB (Hons), Solicitor, MBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9 September 2026 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal Ref: 6011757 20 Irene Avenue, Sunderland SR2 9SZ • 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 Bryan Stewart against the decision of Sunderland City Council. • The application Ref is 25/00633/FUL. • The development is described on the planning application form as a ‘Proposed two-storey side extension and rear single storey extension’. - Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey side extension and rear single storey extension at 20 Irene Avenue, Sunderland SR2 9SZ in accordance with the terms of the application reference 25/00633/FUL and the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following approved plans: Existing and Proposed Elevations and Plans, Proposed Site Plan, Location Plan. 3) The external materials of the extension including render hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Preliminary Matters 2. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been revised since the parties made their original submissions. The main parties have been invited to make further representations in relation to the Framework. Any representations received have been taken into consideration. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is one half of a semi-detached dwelling situated on a corner plot within a housing estate. On site, I observed that on the same side of the street, the majority of the semi-detached dwellings on Irene Avenue and behind on Joan Avenue have been extended to the side. The streetscene that would have originally Appeal Decision 6011757 2 featured semi-detached dwellings with rhythmic gaps along Irene Avenue and Joan Avenue, has been significantly eroded by a variety of side extensions. No 22 Irene Avenue (No 22) on the opposite corner to the appeal property at the junction with Joan Avenue also has a large two storey side extension that is not subservient to the host dwelling. 5. The proposal would introduce a two-storey side extension and rear single storey extension. The ridge height, lack of set back from the main elevation and extent of footprint do not comply with the guidance set out in the Council’s Development Management Supplementary Planning Document (2021) (SPD). The extension to the side would not appear subservient to the host dwelling. 6. The SPD at paragraph 4.21 states that in some instances greater flexibility can be afforded to two-storey side extensions. With this in mind, I find that within the context of the surrounding streetscene, having regard to the prevalent number of extensions in the immediate area that are not subservient, including No 22, the introduction of an extension on this corner plot would be consistent with the present character of the streetscene. 7. The materials to be used in the proposal would be acceptable and there would be no detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. The roof design at the corner would mirror that of No 22 and would thus not appear incongruous in the immediate streetscene. 8. Overall, I find that notwithstanding the identified conflict with the Council’s SPD, within its context, the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. 9. The proposal would provide additional floorspace within the curtilage. As I find the proposal to be consistent with the overall streetscene, I have afforded substantial weight in the planning balance to the benefit of additional floorspace in line with Policy L2 of the Framework. 10. Consequently, I find that the proposal complies with policy BH1 of the Sunderland City Council Local Plan (2020), that, amongst other things, seeks development that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. Conditions and Conclusion. 11. I have had regard to the planning conditions suggested by the Council. I have considered them against the tests in Policy DM6 of the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans to provide certainty and a condition relating to materials in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the area. 12. The proposed development would comply with the development plan when read as a whole. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. A Hartley INSPECTOR