Major new Sunderland retail park wins planning approval

Sunderland City Council’s planning and highways committee has approved proposals for a new retail park off Silksworth Lane featuring an M&S Foodhall, Aldi supermarket and Starbucks drive-through, creating about 150 permanent jobs.

The scheme, earmarked for disused land near Sainsbury’s in Silksworth, has attracted strong public backing, with hundreds supporting the plans despite objections over traffic, loss of green space and the impact on nearby residents.

However, the development is not yet over the line. Because of its out-of-town location and scale, the application must now be referred to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government for a final decision before work can begin.

Earlier this year developers PRZM Real Estate unveiled the plans for the 2.7-hectare site, saying the scheme would create more than 100 jobs. At Monday’s planning meeting, representatives said the development would in fact deliver around 150 roles and support more than 270 construction jobs. 

If granted final approval, the M&S Foodhall will be the retailer’s second largest store in area following the opening of an expanded store in Washington and the closure of its High Street West site back in 2024.

Hundreds of comments were submitted during a public consultation on the development – at least 330 in support and 48 objections.

Those in favour said the plans would create jobs and bring M&S back to a more central Sunderland site.

But objectors said they were worried about a loss of green space, noise and light pollution, antisocial behaviour, a potential impact on privacy and ecology impacts, increased traffic and a loss of trees.

Several supermarket chains also objected, with Morrisons saying the plans went against policies focusing on retail and town centres. Sainsbury’s raised concerns about development on green space, “car parking overprovision” and highway modelling and  Asda said it had “highways-related concerns.”

Responses from the applicant’s agent maintained that the development proposals satisfied relevant tests and that planning issues raised had been addressed.

The council’s planning department said the applicant had “demonstrated that there are not any sequentially preferable alternative sites that could accommodate the proposed development”.

It was also noted that the applicant had “further demonstrated that retail impacts accord with the relevant policies” and that findings had been confirmed by the council’s “independent external consultant.”

An “acoustic barrier” is also planned along part of the development’s boundary to reduce any noise impact on nearby properties, along with works to mitigate flood risk.

Antony Mullen, a former Conservative councillor for the Barnes ward, spoke on behalf of residents who had objected to the scheme, and raised concerns about the retail development exacerbating existing traffic issues.

This included access issues for nearby residential streets, the impact of queuing traffic and pedestrian safety. Locals previously asked for improvements including an alternative entry point to the development, upgraded pedestrian crossing points and box junctions, to improve residential access.

Councillor David Wales also asked about potential safety improvements at the pedestrian crossing point adjacent to The Range store.

In response, highways officers said the council could look at a “road safety audit and assessment.”

Council planners said there was no legal or planning justification for the local planning authority to seek an alternative access arrangement as the local highway authority had found the proposed access acceptable.

Although council highways officers said the retail development was acceptable in highways terms, they said they would investigate highways issues raised separately.