Verdict on Sunderland social club's future amid fears over 'negative impact' on neighbours
Plans for hotel-style accommodation at a former social club site on Wearside have been rejected by city councillors following concerns about parking and privacy.
Sunderland City Council’s Planning and Highways Committee, at a meeting this week, voted unanimously to block an application for the former Pallion Workingmen’s Club site off Waverley Terrace in the Pallion ward.
Back in 2017, the property was purchased by Woodvale Properties which aimed to restore the club and split it into four individual units and several businesses have occupied parts of the building since, from a gin bar and events centre to a dance school, and more recently, a restaurant and licensed events room.
-LDRS.jpeg?crop=3:2,smart&trim=&width=640&quality=65)
The application aimed to retain the restaurant and Vigeo Property offices on the ground floor and to convert the first and second floors to provide hotel accommodation with 20 beds.
Those behind the application said the accommodation would be “suitable for contractors to reside while working in the area” and noted it could benefit the planned Crown Works Studios development nearby.
A management plan submitted with the proposals described the development as the “Woodvale House Hotel” and said the “target market” would be contractors linked to Crown Works Studios, riverside developments, Nissan, the International Advanced Manufacturing Park and more.
The applicant's planning submission said “Sunderland’s short-term let market, particularly those catering to contractors and tourists, is poised for steady growth” and that “with the right strategic planning, the region can capitalise on this trend […] catering to both leisure and business travellers”, with "increased revenue into the local Pallion retail offer through spending in the local shops”.
Plans aimed to “retain and refurbish” the former social club’s ground floor as a “licensed café” to serve both the people using the hotel accommodation and the general public, as well as utilising the space for the community through Vigeo (Sunderland) CIC by offering ‘warm space’ meeting sessions to “prevent isolation”.
Meanwhile, proposals included converting the building’s upper floors into “high-quality living accommodation” under the proposals, with each room including a “bathroom with toilet, wardrobe space, small kitchen area with a microwave plus small fridge”, along with a shared lounge, kitchen area and laundry / drying area in the building.
The management plan added there would be policies around noise control, security and antisocial behaviour and servicing and deliveries, and that the hotel would “maintain an open line of communication with local residents or businesses regarding traffic and parking concerns.”
Although there was no vehicle parking on site, the development proposed six cycle spaces within a small area of land to the south of the site and applicants also submitted a transport plan which they said demonstrated sufficient vehicle parking levels in the wider area.
Council planners said the proposals would have a “negative impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings due to overlooking from upper floor hotel room windows”, particularly in relation to the garden areas and rear windows of several properties on Amethyst Street.
They added that “concerns relating to parking and highway safety and the amenity of neighbouring properties are significant and are not considered to be outweighed by the minor positive aspects of the scheme, such as employment creation and securing the continued use of a prominent building."
The applicant previously said there was “suitable parking locally”, that the development would not “promote parking itself for vehicles as the Metro and building sites will be close by” and that workers using the hotel could “car share”.
However, the council’s highways department concluded the plans, as submitted, would “over intensify the use of the site and the lack of parking provision would have an adverse impact on the surrounding highway network, due to existing parking restrictions in place on the adjacent roads”.
There were also concerns about the “potential for indiscriminate parking and conflict” due to lack of parking and “reliance of on-street parking”, which council highways officers said would “be detrimental to the local residents”.
Council highways officers added “it is an onerous expectation that workers will generally drive with 3-4 people in their vehicles to any hotel location" and noted "this would not be considered as an acceptable justification for a lack of parking provision at the hotel."
During a council public consultation exercise on the plans, there were four objections raising concerns ranging from noise and “poor access”, to lack of parking, overlooking and concerns about future occupants of the hotel.
Elsewhere, North East Screen, the region’s screen agency which supports screen industries including film and TV production, submitted a letter of support for the Pallion hotel development.
Representatives for Woodvale Properties, speaking at the meeting, said they believed the refusal reasons cited by the council had been "fully resolved".
Those behind the hotel plan said the development would not generate higher parking demand, due to "requirements" placed on contractors around car sharing and sustainability, giving the development a "maximum requirement of eight vehicles, based on documented travel behaviour".
Applicants said they had commissioned a transport survey which recorded sufficient levels of "undesignated" parking spaces in the area, as well as citing the benefits of the former social club site's sustainable location near public transport links.
It was also noted that the development was a hotel, not a house in multiple occupation (HMO), and that it would be "professionally managed" with 24/7 staffing, a night porter, a formal antisocial behaviour protocol, upgraded CCTV and lighting and more.
On privacy matters, applicants said they would accept a condition for "non-opening, obscure glazing" to some windows to resolve this matter.
Meanwhile, applicants said they had asked the council if it would consider the use of land at Maxwell Street in Pallion as an "electric vehicle -enabled car park" as a potential parking solution for the scheme.
It was also noted that a residential development at the former Wear Tavern pub, at a "major junction" in Pallion, had been approved by the council "with zero parking, accepting on-street parking is suitable" and applicants said that in this context, refusing plans for the former Pallion social club site would be "inconsistent."
Sunderland City Council highways officers said concerns were linked to "the nature of the operation" and contractor parking, with reference to the use of vans and said the proposed use, in this context, would be "inappropriate and over intensive" in terms of its "reliance" on parking in residential streets.
However, applicants urged decision-makers to support the plans, noting the hotel use would "enhance" the former social club building, "giving it stability and bringing it back into positive use" while creating jobs and bringing wider economic benefits to Pallion.
It was argued that providing "purpose-built" short-term accommodation for contractors would help prevent more family homes on residential streets being "snapped up" and turned into "short-term holiday lets."
In response to a question from councillor Andrew Wood about facilities proposed for hotel customers, applicants stressed that the development would have a microwave in each room, along with a shared kitchen for the hotel and access to a community café in the building.
Councillor Martin Haswell, who previously called the application into the Planning and Highways Committee for decision, asked what "protections" were in place to stop the property being used for a "different clientele" if the building changes ownership in future.
Council planners, responding, confirmed the council had "no control" over who would be staying at a hotel and that while the applicant's intention was for contractors, this could not be enforced via a planning condition.
After being put to the vote, the Planning and Highways Committee voted unanimously to reject the plans in line with the recommendation of council planning officers.
Councillor Martin Haswell, while welcoming the applicant's efforts to make the development acceptable and work around exploring "parking solutions", said he would support the planning officer's recommendation for refusal.
The Pallion ward councillor said he "already gets complaints about parking in that area and demand for a permit zone because of commuters using it to get down to the Metro and not using city centre parking".
Cllr Haswell added: "As a result of parking concerns, the concerns around privacy and also because we can't guarantee what this building gets used for in future, I'm going to support the officer's recommendation for refusal."
The applicant has the right to challenge the council's refusal ruling by lodging an appeal with the Secretary of State.
A representative for Woodvale Properties, speaking after the meeting, said the company was considering submitting an appeal.
For more information on the plan and council decision, visit Sunderland City Council’s planning portal website and search reference: 24/02127/FUL
For the latest public notices from your area, please visit: https://publicnoticeportal.uk/