Decision on controversial corner shop for Station Road in Hetton overturned
Controversial plans for a convenience store on Wearside have been approved at appeal by a Government-appointed planning inspector, despite local objections.
The decision from the national Planning Inspectorate this month (January, 2025) is linked to previously refused plans for a new shop at Station Road in Hetton.
Sunderland City Council’s Planning and Highways Committee blocked plans for the change of use of the former car sales showroom in June, 2024, following road safety and parking concerns.
A majority of city councillors on the decision-making panel voted to refuse the planning application on parking grounds, particularly around the level of vehicle parking proposed.
The decision followed a site visit by councillors and more than 20 public objections to the conversion, and the refusal went against the advice of council planning officers, who had recommended the scheme for approval.
The refusal was also voted through despite arguments that the shop scheme had been changed to address local concerns, including restrictions around opening hours/delivery times, relocating a condenser unit and changes to “informalise” parking in front of the shop.
An appeal was later lodged against Sunderland City Council’s decision to refuse the plans, and a planning inspector was appointed by the Secretary of State to rule on the matter.
It has since been confirmed that the planning inspector has allowed the appeal, meaning planning permission is granted and the development can move forward.
The reasoning for the decision is set out in a report published on the Planning Inspectorate’s website on January 20, 2025 and the planning inspector concluded the proposal would be “acceptable in terms of highway and pedestrian safety.”
The planning inspector said that “vehicle movements associated with the proposed use would mainly involve staff, customers and deliveries, which might include bulky goods transported by larger commercial vehicles”.
However, it was argued that the “previous use as a car showroom would likely have generated similar, if not greater, vehicle activity”, including “trailers and vehicle transporters” and some external space being used for “the storage, display or manoeuvring of vehicles for sale”.
Although the planning inspector acknowledged the parking provision for the shop development could be “strained at full capacity”, it was noted that the “absence of formal parking bay markings means vehicles would likely be parked informally”.
It was also acknowledged that the parking arrangement “could create conflict between vehicles, including those used for deliveries”, but the planning inspector said the “limited scale of the retail unit would be unlikely to attract significant vehicle movements”.
The appeal decision report added: “Numerous objections have been raised regarding parking, highway and pedestrian safety.
“Concerns include cars potentially blocking nearby driveways and footpaths, illegal and inconsiderate parking outside of homes, the safety risks posed by the access point’s location near the brow of a hill, speeding vehicles, and conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians on the forecourt.
“Additionally, the adjacent social club hosts regular social and community events that generate significant traffic, and it is feared that the proposed development would worsen these issues. It is also stated that other similar operations in the area have greater parking provision. Notwithstanding the above, I must assess this proposal on its own merits.
“Considering both the lawful and proposed uses involve customer visits and vehicle parking, there is no compelling evidence that the proposed retail use would cause greater harm to highway or pedestrian safety than the site’s previous operations or any future lawful operation of the site.
“Moreover, the proposed retail use aligns with the appeal site’s location within a district centre […] taking account of the development plan, the framework, and the nature of the proposed and previous uses, I am not persuaded that the development would harm the provision of safe and convenient access for road users, or compromise the free flow of traffic on the public highway, pedestrians or any other transport mode.
“While reference has been made to recent accidents in the area, there is no substantive evidence that the proposal would increase the risk of accidents, or endanger the safety of road users including pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users.”
The planning inspector was also “not persuaded that the retail use would significantly contribute to anti-social behaviour” and said “operational hours could be effectively managed through appropriate conditions.”
An application for an award of costs was also made by the applicant but refused by the planning inspector.
The planning inspector, in a separate published report, said: “I find no evidence to demonstrate that the unreasonable behaviour of the council has resulted in unnecessary or wasted expense during the appeal process.”
For more information on the planning application and appeal, visit Sunderland City Council’s planning portal website and search reference: 23/02499/FUL