Plans for 'overdominant' home extension refused for Washington Village

Sunderland City Council’s planning department has rejected proposals for a householder extension at a property in Richmond Avenue, Washington Village.

The plans had proposed a two-storey side extension with the ground floor including a storage area and study to the front , as well as the reconfiguration of the existing kitchen/dining area.

In addition the first floor part of the extension included reconfiguration works to accommodate one extra bedroom with an ensuite.

A report prepared by council planning officers confirmed the application was a resubmission of a previously approved planning application involving a similar development.

However the previous application was with a “side extension of narrower proportions and with a first floor set back and dropped ridge to the roof”, with the new application seeking approval for a “wider extension”.

After considering the planning application and assessing it against planning policies, Sunderland City Council’s planning department refused it on May 23, 2023.

Council planning officers raised “significant concerns” about the extension’s visual impact, both on the property and the wider area.

A council decision report said this was because the extension would be “77% the width of the original house” as well as other elements of its design failing to follow council guidance.

The council decision report continued: “Given the extension’s significant width and in the absence of a first floor set back and dropped ridge line it is considered the extension would overly dominate the host dwelling, resulting in the creation of an extremely wide, unbroken frontage to the property which will appear as incongruous and intrusive within the prevailing streetscene of this part of Richmond Avenue”.

Although it was noted there were a range of home extensions in the area, council planners said each case must be “assessed on its own merit with reference to site circumstances and the policies in effect at the time”.

Council planners concluded that the development’s size and scale would result in an “overdominant” development “out of keeping with the character of the host property and the street scene in general”.

It was argued that this would be “detrimental to the visual amenity of nearby residents and the locality”.

The council decision report added: “The proposed development, by virtue of its design, scale, massing and position, would appear as an unsympathetic addition to the subject property and a highly conspicuous and overdominant form of development within the context of the street scene.

“The development would therefore be of detriment to the visual amenities of the locality and host property”.

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