Outcome of new plan for 'detrimental' Sunderland building that's causing 'significant nuisance'

Sunderland City Council’s planning department refused an application for 12A Tintern Street in the city’s Millfield ward in a decision notice this week.

The property sits to the rear of 12 Tintern Street, off St Mark’s Road, and behind the Precinct Halls of Residence.

Earlier this year (2025) plans were submitted to change the use of the ground floor of 12A Tintern Street from “storage” to a “garage workshop.”

A council report states the “building has been previously used as a garage workshop without planning permission and an enforcement notice [was] recently served for the use to cease.”

The new planning application for the site, considered by council planning officials in recent months, describes the site as “vacant storage.”

During a council consultation exercise on the plan there were two objections, including one objection from a neighbouring property and one objection from Millfield ward councillor Andrew Wood, with both objections summarised in a council decision report.

The public objector noted that the premises previously operating without planning permission for several months had “caused a lot of disruption and disturbance” and that the site was “not a suitable location for such a business to operate in.”

Other concerns included parking pressures from vehicles visiting the site, access issues for emergency vehicles, bin collection and deliveries , noise impacts and more.

Meanwhile, Cllr Wood raised concerns about “severe harm to highway safety and inadequate parking”, “unacceptable noise, disturbance and loss of residential amenity”, “inadequate provision for commercial waste and refuse” and “conflict with local planning policy”.

Cllr Wood said the plans were “an attempt to legitimise a use that has already proven to be a significant nuisance and a detriment to our community”.

He added that a “commercial garage of this nature, with its associated noise, traffic, and waste, is entirely inappropriate for this location and represents a clear overdevelopment that harms the character of the neighbourhood.”

After considering the planning application, Sunderland City Council’s planning department refused it on November 19, 2025.

Council planners, in a decision report, said the plans were not acceptable in principle as the “surrounding land is residential and such a facility would not be considered to reflect the surrounding pattern of land use”.

The council’s regulatory services team also commented that “the property has previously been used as car repairs which lead to complaints of excessive emissions of noise from the use of power and compressed air tools, and odour from the use of paints and solvents, activities which are fundamental to the proposed use”.

Council planning documents said previous complaints linked to the site also referenced “accumulations of waste on the highway and obstruction of the highway due to the parking of customer vehicles”.

Several refusal reasons were cited by Sunderland City Council in the decision report, including the proposed garage workshop being “detrimental to the residential amenities of adjacent residential properties by reason of noise, disturbance and odour”.

Other reasons for refusal included the plans “leading to indiscriminate parking on the highway due to lack of parking provision and an over intensification of the use” and the “potential for storage of waste on the highway due to inadequate waste storage facilities”.

Council planners said that “given the proximity of the unit to existing dwellings, it is highly likely that any activities completed at the proposed commercial workshop that generate loud noise, or odour, will adversely impact residents living close by, as evidenced by the complaints made […] when the site was recently used as a car garage”.

In this context, council planners said “it is considered unlikely that the applicant could provide reasonable mitigation to overcome these anticipated impact issues”.

Council planners added “it is considered that the building offers limited internal space within the unit to store waste, and the overall waste storageprovision is inadequate” and that there was no dedicated parking provided to serve the proposed workshop.

As a result, the council’s highways department could not support the application for a number of highway safety reasons, including “indiscriminate parking of vehicles on the highway due to lack of parking provision”, the “over intensification of use of the site” and “the potential for the storage of waste on the highway due to inadequate waste storage facilities.”

The applicant has the right to challenge the council’s refusal ruling by lodging an appeal with the Secretary of State.

For more information on the plan and council decision, visit Sunderland City Council’s planning portal website and search reference: 25/02103/FUL

For the latest public notices from your area, please visit: https://publicnoticeportal.uk/