Opposition is growing against plans to demolish part of a popular discount shop in Southwick, with current occupier B&M among those fighting the proposals.

Around 30 objections have been lodged with Sunderland City Council’s planning department, which is considering an outline planning application for a new care development at the site.

The proposals, submitted earlier this year, were seeking permission for the partial demolition of the Southwick B&M shop to make way for a large extra care facility.

This included the provision of up to 47  “assisted living flats” with a mix of one-bedroom and two-bedroom units for “people in need of care”, along with up to eight two-bedroom  “independent living” residential apartments for over 55s.

Plans from Ropley Properties Limited also aimed to retain a smaller retail unit facing onto The Green in Southwick with a layout designed for a “smaller convenience style shop”, planning documents state.

During a council consultation exercise on the plans however, dozens of objections have been submitted raising concerns about the closure of the B&M unit and calling for it to be saved.

One of these objections was submitted on behalf of B&M Retail Ltd and made a case for the care facility plans to be scrapped.

It was noted that the B&M is a “significant retail facility which makes a major contribution to the vitality and viability of the [Southwick] district centre” and employs more than 30 people.

The representation from B&M disputed claims that the “provision of a smaller retailer unit possibly for use as a convenience store would adequately offset the loss of B&M”.

The objector’s statement added: “While the closure of the B&M store is a commercial decision, such an outcome is only arising because of the proposed development by the applicant which would result in the loss of 31 jobs.

“In the event that the current proposal is refused, the outcome would be likely to be materially different”.

Criticism was also levelled at the designs for the new extra care facility, along with questions about its impact on the character of the area.

While it was noted that residential development can “play an important role in ensuring the vitality of centres”, the B&M statement said “this does not apply in the case of this application because the site is already in beneficial use for retail”.

The majority of objections came from members of the public, including a B&M staff member, and concerns were raised about the loss of the shop and the impact on the local shopping area and elderly customers.

Objectors noted the importance of B&M’s retail offer in Southwick and its role in attracting footfall to other smaller independent businesses and asked for alternative sites to be explored for the care scheme.

One objector said the loss of B&M would be “the end of an era for the Village Green”, while another said the plan if approved, would make the area a “ghost town”.

Southwick’s three ward councillors also submitted a joint statement raising concerns about the impact on the area’s community, heritage and local economy.

The statement from councillors Michael Butler, Alex Samuels and Kelly Chequer said developers and the city council needed to “ensure that the new development retains a shopping area that closely resembles the existing one”.

The Southwick councillors said: “Southwick Green has a rich history and has long been the focal point of our community.

“The shopping area is not just a place for transactions but a social hub that brings residents together.

“If the new development does not maintain this shopping element, it could significantly impact footfall to other nearby businesses, potentially harming the local economy.

“We welcome developments that enhance our area, but they should not come at the expense of our heritage and the vibrant shopping atmosphere that has characterised Southwick Green for generations.

“We trust that the council and developers will consider these concerns seriously and work to preserve the unique character of our community”.

A statement was also submitted on behalf of The Probation Service raising concerns about the extra care scheme having an “adverse impact on the operations of the Stoney Lane Contact Centre, both at the construction and operational phase”.

The consultation statement, labelled as ‘neutral’, said there were “security and safety concerns [linked to] the new vehicular access point on Stoney Lane”, as well as concerns about “the introduction of potentially vulnerable residents in close proximity to the existing probation facility”.

Most Read:

Get more from The Northern Echo with a digital subscription, now only £6 for 6 months in our summer sale!

Early proposals to demolish the “more modern” part of the B&M site at the rear of Southwick’s high street were first revealed by developers last year.

As part of the formal outline planning application submitted this year, permission is being sought for the access, layout and scale of the extra care development, with appearance and landscaping “reserved” until a later date.

A planning statement from applicants noted the proposals had been “submitted in outline form to allow for the future operator to have a degree of flexibility and choice with the final detailed design and landscaping”.

The planning statement confirmed the development would “see the closure of the B&M unit” and acknowledged there had been “objection to the loss of the B&M retail unit from local residents as part of the [previous community] consultation exercise”.

However, it was noted that retail units were not classed as a “community facility” under planning policies and that the “policy test is whether or not the vitality and viability of the district centre is maintained and enhanced”.

Developers added the existing B&M building is of “poor design” and that new plans “present an opportunity to enhance the character of the site”.

A decision on the outline planning application is expected to be made later this year.

For more information on the planning application or to track its progress, visit Sunderland City Council’s planning portal website and search reference: 24/01111/OUT