Developer fights decision to block student accommodation above Sunderland Vietnamese restaurant

An appeal has been lodged against Sunderland City Council’s recent decision to refuse plans for 15 Waterloo Place, a three-storey building which sits on the corner with Blandford Street and near the city’s central rail station.

The corner retail unit was formerly occupied by the Herbert Brown jewellery shop and in recent years, several attempts have been made to convert the building’s upper floors into residential accommodation.

This included an initial bid for apartments which was blocked by the city council’s planning department after being labelled “sub-standard“, and a separate bid for a house in multiple occupation (HMO) which was also refused by the council, then dismissed at appeal by a Government-appointed planning inspector.

More recently, the building has been given a facelift and re-opened at ground floor level as dedicated Vietnamese restaurant Pho 179.

New plans submitted in summer 2024 [planning reference 24/01372/FUL] aimed to change the use of the building’s first and second floors to five studio apartments and one self-contained apartment, along with a separate laundry room.

A design and access statement submitted to council officials at the time said the scheme aimed to provide a residential use “suitable for student accommodation” and noted the development would house six people, with “each unit having its own cooking facilities and shower room” and space for a double bed and study area.

Following a council public consultation exercise on the plans, there were six objections including from Harrison and Brown Furniture Ltd, the Music Venue Trust and more, with a range of issues raised, including increased litter and bin storage management and concerns nearby “grassroots music venue [Independent] would face an increased risk of noise complaints which would impact upon its ongoing viability.”

During the planning process, the planning application was amended to “remove one studio to provide communal space to the rear first floor”, with four studio apartments and one self-contained apartment proposed instead.

This followed concerns from the council’s environmental health team “with regard to noise impact on the occupiers” and the amended scheme aimed to “relocate bedrooms away from the rear of the property.”

Despite the amended scheme, Sunderland City Council’s planning department refused the plan on October 27, 2025, citing refusal reasons covering noise impacts, the amenity of future occupiers of the student accommodation and concerns about a proposed extraction system.

Reasons for refusal were linked to the application site’s “close proximity” to the music venue Independent and the ‘agent of change’ principle in planning rules, which states that “where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed”.

In the case of 15 Waterloo Place however, council planners noted that “suitable mitigation has not been provided in this instance”, with another reason for refusal including the proposed student accommodation “not providing occupiers with an acceptable standard of amenity, given the proximity to a late-night music venue and the late night noise associated with this, as well as the daytime noise associated with the extended extraction system.”

It has since been confirmed that the applicant is contesting the council refusal decision and has submitted an appeal to the national Planning Inspectorate.

A planning inspector will be appointed by the Secretary of State to rule on the matter, which could see the council’s refusal decision being upheld or thrown out.

A number of appeal documents have been published on the council’s public planning portal website, including an “appeal statement” setting out the appellant’s case why the development should be allowed.

Those behind the appeal said the application site sits within the city centre and urban core where adopted planning policies “encourage the re-use of upper floors for residential and student accommodation”.

It was noted that “noise and odour assessments [had] identified appropriate mitigation measures to ensure the development meets relevant guidance” and that “practical, implementable measures” had been identified, “including facade enhancements, improved glazing, and mechanical ventilation that would allow internal noise levels to meet established standards”.

The appellant said that the council’s environmental health concern related to “the reliance on mechanical ventilation and the potential for occupants to open windows at certain times, which could reduce the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation”.

Although this concern was noted, those behind the appeal said the “submitted acoustic assessment nevertheless identifies a package of mitigation measures designed to enable compliance” with relevant criteria, and that the “mitigation is defined, targeted and deliverable”.

On concerns about “the potential for intermittent high-level external noise events, such as bottle emptying or patrons leaving nearby premises”, the appellant said that “these activities are a recognised feature of city centre environments and were identified within the acoustic assessment as short-duration, irregular events”.

On matters of odour, it was noted that the appellant had “submitted a detailed assessment prepared in accordance with IAQM guidance, including three separate field surveys undertaken under conditions identified as worst case”.

It was noted that “the assessment considered odour arising from the ground floor restaurant use and concluded that, with the proposed extension of the extraction flue and the provision of carbon-filtered mechanical ventilation to the residential units, odour impacts would be not significant”.

The appellant also mentioned the ‘agent of change’ principle which means that “new development is capable of integrating effectively with existing lawful operations, and that any necessary mitigation is provided before occupation”.

The appellant said that in the case of 15 Waterloo Place, the “submitted acoustic and odour assessments identify a package of mitigation measures and demonstrate how these would be delivered as part of the scheme” and that “the evidence does not indicate that the proposal would give rise to unreasonable operational constraints on nearby businesses”.

The appeal statement adds: “The council’s concern is framed in terms of the potential for future complaints; however, the possibility of such complaints does not, of itself, demonstrate that the proposed use cannot be made acceptable where appropriate mitigation is in place.

“The appeal proposal comprises purpose-built student accommodation within a city centre location, it is residential in nature and is required to provide an appropriate standard of amenity.

“The accommodation has been specifically designed to respond to its surroundings, with mitigation measures intended to manage noise and odour arising from established town centre uses.

“When considered in this context, and having regard to the evidence submitted, the proposal is capable of delivering acceptable living conditions without giving rise to undue conflict with neighbouring activities.”

An update on the appeal will be published on the Planning Inspectorate’s website once a decision has been made.

For more information on the planning application and appeal, visit Sunderland City Council’s planning portal website and search reference: 26/00004/REF