Plans blocked for holiday homes near The Shipwrights pub in historic Sunderland riverside area

Plans for holiday apartments at a historic riverside location in Sunderland have been refused by city development bosses over heritage, ecology and traffic concerns.

Sunderland City Council’s planning department has blocked an application for Manor House Farm, which sits at the southern tip of Ferryboat Lane in the North Hylton area.

The plans, described in a planning listing as ‘part-retrospective’, were submitted last year and applied to an outbuilding and former ‘workers/housekeepers quarters’ at the site.

New plans from North Hylton Developments aimed to convert the building into six self-contained holiday let units along with associated parking.

Council planning documents confirmed the site had “historic value” and that buildings were a “non-designated heritage asset’.

The application property was also described by the council as the former ‘Hylton Pot Works’ established at North Hylton in 1762 by the Maling family.

Applicants previously said that the proposed holiday let development, referred to as “Manor House Mews”, would have a positive impact on Sunderland’s hospitality and tourism offer.

This included the plans “supporting the economic viability and enjoyment” of nearby listed venue The Shipwrights and “enabling the opportunity for visitors to enjoy the character and original form of the Manor House Farm site”.

After considering the planning application and assessing it against planning policies, however, Sunderland City Council’s planning department refused it on February 29, 2024.

Council planning officers noted the application site was in an “isolated position” within an “identified wildlife corridor”, and accessed by a “non-vehicular public right of way coincident with private vehicle use”.

A total of seven refusal reasons were listed in an official council decision report for the holiday let scheme, ranging from impacts on the openness of the Green Belt to the lack of information around “minimum spacing standards” for the apartments.

Elsewhere, concerns were raised about the “wear and tear” and “damage” to a public right of way from more vehicles accessing the site.

Other issues raised by the city council included the impact of the works on the significance of heritage assets, and wider ecology and conservation concerns.

The council decision report’s conclusion states: “The proposed conversion and change of use of the existing outbuilding is welcomed in principle, however, the conversion to No.6 residential units would lead to an over-intensification of the site and would conflict with the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of the land within it.

“Very special circumstances have not been demonstrated to outweigh the harm.

“Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the development would not have a negative impact on the non-designated heritage asset or on the potential archaeological remains within the site.

“The proposal fails to demonstrate that as a result of the development a good standard of amenity for future occupiers of the land and building can be achieved. The application has failed to demonstrate that the proposals accord with national described minimum spacing standard.

“In the absence of the dusk emergence surveys, insufficient information has been provided to discharge […] duties in relation to European protected species under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended).

“The applicant has failed to confirm their willingness to enter into either a S106 agreement or unilateral undertaking in respect of ecological mitigation.

“The intensification of use would cause wear and tear and damage to the [public right of way].

“It is considered that with the imposition and adherence to recommended planning conditions, the proposal would not have a negative impact on neighbouring amenity or highway and pedestrian safety”.

The council decision report said “there would be little to stop the units being made available for rent on a longer-term basis or offered for sale on the open market”.

It was also noted that the “commencement of works without planning permission has bypassed the opportunity to influence the design choices to create a more positive outcome for the building, but also resulted in a lost opportunity to record the building in its historic state”.

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

For more information on the planning application and council decision, visit Sunderland City Council’s planning portal website and search reference: 23/01599/FUL