Developers learn outcome of fight to create 'unacceptable and harmful' seven-bed shared house in Sunderland
Plans for a new seven-bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO) on Wearside have been thrown out at appeal by a Government-appointed planning inspector.
The national Planning Inspectorate has dismissed an appeal for 3 Riversdale Terrace in the city’s Millfield ward linked to a Sunderland City Council decision last year (2025) to refuse the plans.
Plans showed all proposed HMO bedrooms offering an en-suite bathroom and some bedrooms served by “designated kitchenettes.”
It was argued that the new HMO would “lead to an overconcentration of HMOs within the vicinity, to the detriment of the amenities of the area and contrary to planning guidance” and the council’s Core Strategy and Development Plan, or local plan.
The second reason for refusal included the plans being “inappropriate development” and the “likely adverse impact upon the living conditions and amenities of [the HMO’s] future occupants and the occupiers of nearby properties”.
Issues raised by police as a consultee around the HMO layout were also noted in the decision report, including occupants of rooms on the second floor having to “travel the full height of the building to store food and prepare meals”, as well as the “small amount of external space” and “potential for antisocial behaviour to spill out into the surrounding locality”.
Council planners concluded the proposed HMO would be “unacceptable as it would be considered to be harmful to the character and amenities of the area.”
The applicant later decided to contest the council refusal decision by submitting an appeal to the national Planning Inspectorate and a planning inspector was appointed by the Secretary of State to rule on the matter.
The appellant maintained the site would be subject to HMO licensing, would be “professionally managed with clear internal layout and amenity standards” and would be “secure, with limited external space and passive surveillance of the street”.
In the appeal statement’s conclusion, it was argued that the “police did not object to the proposal and the LPA [local planning authority] have not substantiated any ‘potential’ issues to justify a refusal” and that the development would be an “efficient reuse of an existing residential building in a sustainable location.”
In an appeal decision report published on December 22, 2025, it was confirmed that the appeal had been dismissed and that the original council refusal should be upheld.
The planning inspector, in the decision report, concluded that the “proposed development would lead to an over-concentration of HMOs in the area” in conflict with council planning policies and guidance.
This included reference to the threshold set out in council planning guidance, which includes the council “resisting proposals where the number of HMOs within a 100-metre radius of the site exceed 10 per cent of the total number of residential properties”, and it was noted that this limit had already been exceeded in the area around the appeal site.
The appeal decision report noted that “where this threshold would be breached, permission will only be granted in exceptional circumstances”.
On the property at Riversdale Terrace, the appeal decision report said there was no evidence presented that “any unmet demand for HMOs cannot be met at other locations within Sunderland, where existing concentrations may be lower and where potential effects due to an unbalanced housing mix would be less likely to occur”.
It was also noted that “exceptional circumstances to justify further increasing the concentration of HMOs in the locality of the appeal site, beyond the point at which imbalance would occur, do not exist in this case”.
The planning inspector said the appellant had “queried whether all of the properties referred to [as part of the council refusal ruling] remain in HMO use”.
Although it was noted that the “council has not provided any details of the specific methodology used to arrive at this figure”, the planning inspector said “neither has any alternative substantive evidence in this regard been put before me”.
The planning inspector added: “In this case, having regard to the advice within the SPD [supplementary planning document], the evidence indicates that the number of HMOs in the area would amount to over-concentration, which itself can be harmful to the character of the area and community cohesion through tenure imbalance alone, even having regard to the individual merits of the proposal.”
On matters of living conditions, the planning inspector concluded the proposal would “provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupiers” and that it would be “unlikely that future residents would be excessively reliant upon public spaces for outdoor recreation”.
The planning inspector said that the “individual circumstances of the appeal proposal do not, therefore, lead me to conclude that it would be inherently likely to lead to anti-social behaviour, increase demand on police resources, or for that matter, lead to an increased fear of crime”.
It was noted that it had “not been shown that the specific circumstances of the proposal would be likely to lead to unacceptable living conditions for existing occupiers with particular reference to fear of crime.”
In a conclusion setting out the reasons for the appeal being dismissed, the planning inspector added that the proposal would still “conflict with the development plan as a whole”.
It was noted that there were “no considerations, including the provisions of the framework, to lead me to a decision other than in accordance with the plan.”
The full appeal decision report can be found via the Planning Inspectorate’s website.
For more information on the planning application, visit Sunderland City Council’s planning portal website and search reference: 25/00533/FUL