Argyle House School in Sunderland told it can't use playground in morning or evening over parking concerns
A Sunderland school’s bid to extend opening times for its “games area” have been refused by council planners over parking and road safety concerns.
Sunderland City Council’s planning department recently blocked an application from Argyle House School to increase the hours in which its games area / school yard could be used.
A planning application from the school submitted last year (2024) said an existing planning condition “requires the games area/school yard to be used only between the hours of 9am and 5pm daily”.
However, the planning application noted that “this restriction on hours no longer reflects the hours of operation of the school” and that “early morning school breakfast clubs and early evening after school clubs, parents’ evenings and school performances/shows require greater flexibility”.
In this context, the school applied to the council to amend the existing planning condition to allow the games area to be used “between hours 8am and 7pm daily”, which represented an additional three hours per day.
The school noted that “typically the premises are in use 8am to 6pm and occasionally to 7pm.”
During a council consultation exercise on the plans however, the application sparked a public backlash with 16 objections, including from some neighbouring properties and local councillors.
The concerns, summarised in a council report, included increased noise and traffic, access issues at Thornhill Park which runs alongside the school site, air pollution, light pollution from floodlights, loss of privacy and more.
A consultation statement from councillor Lyall Reed, St Michael’s ward representative, said there was “great concern relating to this application” and Cllr Reed flagged potential impacts on “residents’ quality of life and amenity.”
Fellow St Michael’s ward councillor, Michael Dixon, also raised concerns about “parking problems” near the school, including the “daily queue of vehicles […] both in the morning and afternoon, when turning and access is very difficult” and incidents involving “cars parked over drives”.
Cllr Dixon’s statement added: “Based on my own experience as a councillor of parking issues in Thornhill Park and the very specific/clear opinion of the council’s highways engineer, plus comments from residents who have to endure continuous problems, I would like to submit my objection to the proposed extension of hours.”
The council’s group highways engineer, who outlined a formal objection in a consultation statement, said it was “understood that there will be no additional organised activities by the school or increase in pupil numbers”.
However, the council officer concluded that “extending the hours both before and after the school day will create further parking issues along an already congested residential street”.
This included “increased issues of inconsiderate parking, associated noise/air quality issues arising from parked cars and road safety concerns.”
After considering the planning application for extended hours for the games area, Sunderland City Council’s planning department refused it at the end of February, 2025.
Council planners, in a decision report, noted responses from the applicant around “lighting and use of the yard area” which confirmed “the area will only be used for congregating and not for organised sports activities”.
The council’s environmental health team recommended that the applicant “submits a lighting scheme, given the increase in hours of use, which should consider the suitability of the present lighting, its directionality, glare and overspill onto the properties opposite”.
It was also requested that “before a decision can be made to approve the proposals, a suite of bat activity surveys to describe the use of the site and any area affected by the lighting by bats will need to be undertaken.”
Council planners set out two main reasons for refusal in their decision on the planning application, including road safety and lack of requested information around ecology and residential amenity issues.
They said the proposal would “lead to the attraction of vehicles to and from the site and without adequate off-street parking facilities, would lead to the creation of conditions prejudicial to road safety”.
The second reason for refusal included the “absence of a bat survey and a lighting assessment” from the applicant which, council planners said, meant “insufficient information has been received in order to determine the impacts upon ecology and residential amenity.”
The applicant has the right to challenge the council’s refusal decision by lodging an appeal with the Secretary of State.
For more information on the plan and council refusal decision, visit Sunderland City Council’s planning portal website and search reference: 24/02333/VAR