Controversial plans to convert a former pub into a convenience store have been dismissed by a government-appointed planning inspector.

Earlier this year, an appeal was lodged against Sunderland City Council’s decision to refuse plans for the New Inn pub site in the Hetton area.

The local authority’s planning department blocked plans for the change of use of the building’s ground floor back in November 2023, over road safety and parking concerns.

Concerns were linked to the pub site’s location between roundabouts and roads which already had a “large volume of traffic” associated with a local school.

Council planners, in a decision report, referenced traffic accident data over a 23-year period, noting there had been at least 20 accidents close to the pub site and “mainly within the two roundabouts”.

It was also noted that there was no space within the site to allow for manoeuvring, meaning vehicles would “have to reverse onto the road between the two roundabouts”.

The level of parking advised by the council was also seven spaces, however, the development only proposed three.

The council's refusal decision on the shop plan followed objections from members of the public, as well as an objection from Hetton Town Council over road safety issues.

Despite the applicant providing details of servicing arrangements to reduce disruption, council planners said there was “no guarantee that the shop would not become part of a chain of stores in the future” using larger vehicles.

Following the council's refusal, the applicant lodged an appeal and a planning inspector was appointed by the Secretary of State to rule on the matter.

An appellant statement, published on Sunderland City Council’s website, set out a ‘statement of case’ for the appeal mainly around parking, impacts on highway safety and servicing arrangements for the convenience store.

The appellant maintained the area “suffers from very little parking stress at all” and that there were a large number of available spaces near the site, as well as claiming many issues linked to the council’s refusal were “largely unsubstantiated”.

The appellant maintained “no accidents appear to be associated with access or egress to the pub” and that the site could “easily be serviced by one van”, which would “create little to no impact over and above what is lawful and existing currently”.

Those behind the development added the site could be “turned into a useful community facility […] improving the street scene, reducing the need to travel and preventing the continued dereliction of a prominent local building”.

After considering the planning application and a site visit, the national planning inspector upheld the council’s refusal decision and dismissed the appeal.

An official appeal decision report, published on June 11, 2024, said the three proposed spaces for customer parking would be “appropriate” due to the site’s residential location and “the availability of safe and convenient on-street parking nearby”.

However, the appeal decision report noted there was no “robust evidence” that a yard at the site “could be used to meet the delivery and servicing needs of the appeal scheme or provide a parking space for the manager”.

The planning inspector added that in these circumstances, the “car parking area would not solely be used for customer parking and would instead also be used for deliveries and the parking of the manager’s vehicle”.

The appeal decision report adds: “The use of the car parking area for servicing would at certain times result in reduced availability of customer parking or in some cases if a delivery van were to take up the whole car park if manoeuvring, no availability for customer parking.

“This situation would result in an increased potential for dangerous indiscriminate parking outside the appeal site.

“It is suggested that mitigation for any dangerous displacement parking could be secured by creating a traffic regulation order prohibiting waiting at any time in the vicinity of the appeal site at the appellant’s expense.

“However, there is no planning obligation before me to secure the required financial contribution and in any event, this would not resolve the harm I have identified regarding the servicing of the premises.

“Similarly, even if I were to accept that the availability of safe and convenient on-street parking nearby to the site renders the parking standards arbitrary in the context of the proposal, the servicing arrangements would still be likely to increase the risk of accidents or endanger the safety of road users”.

The appeal decision report referenced submissions from the appellant that there was “no realistic prospect of the site being used as a public house” and that the proposed shop would “provide a community facility that would benefit local residents, including the elderly”.

However, the planning inspector concluded that the shop proposal would still have an “unacceptable adverse effect on highway safety, with regard to car parking and servicing”.

Most read:

Stay ahead with every development. Our election coverage brings you insights and updates directly. Save 40% on annual subscriptions starting today! #StayInformed

 

The Northern Echo:

The appeal decision report added: “It has not been clearly demonstrated that there would be a separate servicing yard to the customer parking area, leaving the area of hardstanding to the side of the appeal premises to act as customer parking and delivery/service/manager parking area.

“Overall, the increased potential for displacement parking and the use of the area of hardstanding immediately adjacent to the double roundabout for servicing would be likely to compromise the free flow of traffic on the local road network and cause a conflict between vehicles and pedestrians”.

For more information on the planning application and council refusal decision, visit Sunderland City Council’s planning portal website and search reference: 23/00334/FUL The full appeal decision report for the development is also available to view via the Planning Inspectorate’s website.