Pizza restaurant's bid for an extension rejected for the THIRD TIME as planning bosses repeat concerns over the impact on neighbours
A Sunderland restaurant’s bid to improve facilities for staff and customers has been rejected for a third time.
Mama’s Bar-Grill-Pizzeria, in Houghton Road, Newbottle, had sought permission for a two storey extension at the back of the property, to increase kitchen facilities and create of a staff room
Two similar applications were previously submitted to the council from the restaurant and both were refused, in February and July respectively.
The eatery had been hoping it would be third time lucky with the latest amended extension plans.
But Sunderland City Council’s Planning and Highways Committee refused the application, in line with a formal recommendation from the local authority’s planning department.
A report for the panel claimed the development “would be detrimental to the amenities of adjacent residential properties by reason of visual intrusion, over dominance and loss of outlook.”
Two Houghton ward councillors spoke at the meeting to voice concerns on behalf of residents, with five objections submitted to the council over the proposals from those living nearby.
Councillor Juliana Heron said: “This is going to be really detrimental to the houses near Mama’s Kitchen, that’s what we think, it’s the residents that have spoken really.”
Similarly, Councillor Mark Burrell raised concerns plans would have a negative effect by causing an “inevitable increase in traffic, litter, noise and a detrimental visual impact on the area.”
A written statement was submitted for councillors at the meeting from restaurant bosses, who said they were “very disappointed and surprised to once again find a recommendation for refusal”.
It added the proposals had removed the smoking shelter and storage area elements which had faced objections previously, while the staff facilities and kitchen extension “would have very little impact on the residential properties”.
They also apologised for not attending the meeting and asked for the decision to be deferred so they could make their case in person, “or at the very least the benefits to be taken into consideration”.
Councillors confirmed they had read all the comments, however decided to progress with making a decision on the application, as a site visit had already been carried out and there were “no material planning changes” raised.