Sunderland city centre flat plans rejected by planning inspector over threat to live music venue Independent

The national Planning Inspectorate, in a decision published this week, dismissed an appeal against Sunderland City Council’s refusal of two flats above Dr Q’s Food Factory at 24 Holmeside, near music venue and nightclub Independent.

The local authority’s planning department had originally refused the plan for the first floor, one-bedroom flats on November 14, 2024, citing noise concerns and comments from objectors.

There were seven public objections linked to the application, including from the former owner of Independent and the charity Music Venue Trust, raising concerns about impacts on the nearby grassroots music venue.

The Music Venue Trust said noise complaints impacting music venues were a UK-wide issue and that the proposed flats plan in Holmeside, Sunderland, presented an “increased risk that a change of use will lead to noise complaints from incoming residents”.

There were also fears that the “proximity of new residential units to Independent” would “place the future of the grassroots music venue under sustained risk of permanent closure” and “impact upon its ongoing viability.”

The planning application submitted to council officials last year (2024) described the proposed development as “two independent flats” and said there were measures to address potential noise issues from neighbouring premises.

This included upgrading the floor to the commercial ground floor use along with party walls and upgrading glazing, as well as “fixed shut windows” and a “mechanical ventilation system with heat recovery in the loft space.”

Get the latest updates - follow us on our Facebook page

However, Sunderland City Council refused the plans last year (2024) over the “likelihood of complaints from the prospective residents regarding noise nuisance […] with the risk of restrictive and regulatory action being taken against the existing venue [Independent]”.

Council planners argued that it had “not been demonstrated that future occupiers would be afforded an acceptable standard of living in respect of impacts of noise from nearby commercial premises”.

The council added the proposed noise mitigation measures involved “fixed closed windows”, which were “not supported by the council’s environmental health team and may not even provide the level of mitigation required.”

Following the council refusal, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Secretary of State and a planning inspector was appointed to rule on the application.

In a decision published on April 29, 2025, the planning inspector dismissed the appeal and upheld the council’s original refusal decision.

A previous “appeal statement” from the appellant said a noise report submitted with the planning application had been “prepared using a robust methodology” and concluded that proposed “mitigation measures are appropriate”.

Those behind the appeal also said the council, in reaching its previous refusal decision, had given “insufficient weight” to the conclusions of the noise report which stated that, with recommended mitigation measures, the noise levels would “meet the required standards.”

The appellant’s document added there was a “lack of justification [from the council] as to why non-opening windows would not be appropriate for residential development within a busy city centre” and noted that there had been recently approved “residential units” close to music venue Independent.

This included sites at Holmeside and one site at Blandford Street, as well as sites where “fixed closed windows” had been approved elsewhere in the city centre.

Check out the latest developments in Sunderland

The planning inspector, in an appeal decision report, noted Independent has “late night operating hours” and that “significant noise associated with Independent would be generated within the street at late evenings/early mornings when residents would be sleeping”, from “customers queuing/congregating”, to loading bays being used as pick-up/drop-off points.

Reference was made to “fixed closed windows not [being] desirable given the lack of choice for occupiers to open their windows, demonstrating that the site is unsuitable for a residential dwelling”.

Elsewhere, questions were raised about whether the proposed glazing scheme would be “sufficient to mitigate against such [noise] levels” from the area, which would “likely lead to occupiers complaining of excessive noise from the music venue”.

The planning inspector also noted representations from the Music Venue Trust charity and “the challenges of allowing occupiers to reside in such close quarters of this existing use where the levels of noise can indeed fluctuate and be difficult to control”.

The planning inspector concluded that it was “likely that the development would result in future occupants being adversely impacted by noise, to the detriment of their amenity”.

It was argued that “this would likely lead to occupiers complaining of excessive noise from Independent which could result in demands for intervention to restrict [its] operations”.

Go beyond the story - sign up for our Sunderland Echo newsletters

The appeal decision report added: “This would still be the case even if residents were aware of the proximity of Independent prior.

“This is because future occupiers would unlikely know the full extent to which the impact of noise would have on their quality of life until they are occupying the property and have experienced this.”

The planning inspector also referenced other examples in the city centre where Sunderland City Council had approved fixed closed windows but noted that “the schemes are different, and these properties are a further distance from the venue unlike the appeal site”.

The appeal decision report added: “Overall, I do not find such schemes to be directly comparable and in any event, I have determined this appeal based on its own merits.

“The presence of fixed windows and residential units elsewhere in the city would not be a sufficient reason to justify harmful development.”

The refused planning application for two flats at 24 Holmeside was submitted just months after plans for a scheme for one flat with five bedrooms (in the same first floor space) were rejected by the city council over noise concerns and against the backdrop of 14 public objections.

This included concerns about impacts on grassroots music venue and nightclub Independent, particularly around potential “noise complaints from future residents” of the flat.

For more information on the latest refused planning application and appeal decision, visit Sunderland City Council’s planning portal website and search reference: 24/01919/PCM