Wearside takeaway plans blocked over child obesity concerns
A change of use for a site in Sunderland's Silksworth ward has been rejected
Plans for a new hot food takeaway on Wearside have been blocked by council development bosses over childhood obesity, noise and odour concerns.
Sunderland City Council’s planning department has refused an application for a commercial unit at 2 Tunstall Village Road in the city’s Silksworth ward.
Applicant Al Forno Express had applied for permission for a change of planning use class to operate a hot food takeaway from the site.
Council planning documents note the site was previously a dog grooming salon and that in recent years, a separate bid to operate a hot food takeaway from the site for a “temporary period of two years” was rejected by local authority planners.
A council planning report stated that the unit now “appears to be being operated as a hot food takeaway (operating as ‘Al Forno’)” but that “such a use is unauthorised for planning purposes.”
After considering the formal application to authorise a hot food takeaway use at the site, Sunderland City Council’s planning department refused it on August 4, 2025, with two refusal reasons cited.
This included the plans clashing with a policy in the council’s Core Strategy and Development Plan, or ‘local plan’, around hot food takeaways which focuses on actions to “support or improve the health and wellbeing of local communities”.
Council documents state the policy “seeks to carefully manage the opening of new hot food takeaways, on the basis that the council is becoming increasingly concerned over the number of hot food takeaways in the city and the impact this is having on public health and obesity rates”.
It was noted that the Tunstall Village Road unit was “within a 400m radius of the entry points to the New Silksworth Academy and St Leonards Catholic Primary School” and within the Silksworth ward, where childhood obesity levels exceed thresholds set out in council policy (21 per cent for year six pupils or 10 per cent for reception pupils).
The latest childhood obesity data from the National Child Measuring Programme (for Silksworth ward) recorded the year six level at 28.8 per cent and reception year level at 15.3 per cent.
In this context, council planners said the proposed hot food takeaway was “unacceptable in principle” as it clashed with local and national planning policies which “aim to achieve healthy places which enable and support healthy lifestyles, as well as addressing identified local health and well-being issues.”
The second reason for refusal was linked to an extraction system, with the council’s environmental health officer stating “the application is not accompanied by information which gives confidence that the extraction system at the premises would adequately deal with odours from food preparation and cooking”.
In addition, it was noted that there was “no information to give
confidence that the extraction system and air conditioning unit would not give rise to unacceptable levels of noise in relation to nearby dwellings”.
As a result, the council’s planning department said “it cannot, therefore, be concluded that the development would not give rise to harm to local amenity by virtue of pollution”.
Although it was noted that planning permission for an extraction system had previously been approved by the council, “there was no planning permission for a hot food takeaway at the time that system was assessed”.
The council decision report adds: “The proposal for a change of use to hot food takeaway has been found to be unacceptable as it would impact negatively on local health and would be contrary to planning policies.
“Additionally, it has not been demonstrated that extraction for the proposed hot food takeaway would be effective in terms of odour control and would not give rise to unacceptable levels of noise (in combination with the air con system), in conflict with planning policies.
“Although the proposal has been found to be acceptable with regard to visual amenity and highway safety, it would result in conditions that are prejudicial to local health and local amenity.”
The applicant has the right to challenge the council’s refusal decision by lodging an appeal with the Secretary of State.