Controversial shop plans for former Hetton garage site refused over parking concerns
The applicant has the right to appeal
Controversial plans for a new convenience store in Hetton have been blocked by city councillors over parking concerns.
Sunderland City Council’s Planning and Highways Committee, at a meeting this week, voted against the advice of council planning officers and rejected proposals for a new shop at Station Road.
The site and building were previously occupied by a car sales showroom and sit adjacent to the car park of Hetton Social Club.
Since the plans were submitted works have taken place, including new signage advertising the site as a Go Local Extra store, however applicants have previously stressed the shop has not opened for trade.
Applicants also confirmed five parking spaces were proposed for customers in a forecourt area, as well as cycle parking.
During a council consultation exercise on the plans, the shop scheme sparked public opposition with more than 20 objections.
Concerns included increased disturbance, the lack of “adequate parking”, highway safety issues, antisocial behaviour, litter, property devaluation and works taking place at the site without planning permission.
Hetton Town Council also submitted an objection raising concerns about the “oversupply” of retail outlets in the area, issues around site access, road safety, and potential noise nuisance due to “long business hours”.
A decision on the plans was expected at a Planning and Highways Committee meeting at City Hall in March, 2024, with council planning officers recommending the scheme for approval.
Opponents of the shop plan raised concerns at the time about deliveries and parking, highway safety and the potential for disputes over access to private land, including customers parking in the adjacent social club’s car park.
The planning application returned to the Planning and Highways Committee on June 10, 2024, where arguments for and against the scheme were put forward again.
Councillors heard that there had been amendments to the plans since the last council meeting, including removing marked parking spaces and bollards to improve manoeuvrability on site.
However, several councillors continued to question whether parking was sufficient, as well as raising concerns about potential access conflicts with a private social club car park and the Showmen’s Guild site nearby.
Councillor David Geddis, of Hetton Town Council, previously said the shop use would “cause chaos” if approved.
Speaking again at the Planning and Highways Committee this week, he said: “If this council passes this tonight it will be an absolute disgrace because there are too many unanswered questions”.
A planning agent for applicant Ramalingham Sutheswaran, speaking at City Hall, stressed the plans would be a “great improvement for the area”.
It was noted that the plans had been deemed acceptable by council planning officers and that the scheme had been changed to address local concerns.
This included restrictions around opening hours/delivery times, relocating a condenser unit and recent changes to “informalise” parking in front of the store.
Council highways officers, in a council report, previously said the increase in short-stay parking and associated vehicle movements would “likely be a nominal increase” and that applicants maintained there was “sufficient space within the site […] to provide servicing and turning manoeuvres”.
Planning conditions were also recommended to manage parking at the site and ensure that “deliveries are carried out in a safe manner”.
During discussion of the application on Monday evening, several councillors continued to raise concerns about parking and highway safety.
Councillor Martin Haswell noted part of the Hetton building, which is not included in the planning application, had not been factored into a wider assessment of parking availability at the site.
Although no planning proposals have been submitted to the council for this separate unit, concerns were raised about the unit being brought into use in future and its potential to worsen parking issues at the site.
Councillor Iain Scott, a committee member and Hetton ward councillor, also continued to raise concerns about parking and access arrangements for the proposed shop and associated safety issues.
“I don’t think that this is sustainable, there are too many concerns of mine whereby I don’t think I could lend this my support on this occasion,” he added.
Councillor Stephen Foster also said the removal of marked parking bays “could cause problems” and that visitors were “just going to park anywhere”.
As councillors moved to vote to refuse the plan, against the advice of planning officers, the committee was warned this could lead to an appeal and the council facing costs following a planning inspector’s ruling.
However, the majority of the Planning and Highways Committee proceeded to vote to refuse the planning application on parking grounds, particularly around the level of vehicle parking proposed.
The vote was carried with six votes in favour of refusal and three votes against.
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 planning application and council decision, visit Sunderland City Council’s planning portal website and search reference: 23/02499/FUL