HMO plans for Sunderland neighbourhood rejected over 'substandard' housing concerns

Sunderland City Council’s Planning and Highways Committee, at a meeting this week, voted to reject plans for a property at 22 Athol Park in the Hendon ward.

The application was linked to a two-storey semi-detached property within a cul-de-sac, and within an area subject to an ‘article four direction’, where all HMO conversions need planning permission.

Houses in multiple occupation typically see multiple households living in one building with individual bedrooms and shared basic amenities, such as living space or cooking facilities.

The case of 22 Athol Park involved a retrospective application to continue to use the building as a HMO for a maximum of six people, and a council report noted the building was occupied.

During a council consultation exercise, the five-bedroom HMO plan sparked opposition with around 22 public objections raising a range of concerns.

Concerns included the HMO operating without planning permission, access issues, parking pressures, “comings and goings” linked to the property, and impacts on the character of the street.

An objection was also submitted by all three Hendon ward councillors, who labelled the planning application as “wholly inappropriate”.

Concerns included the plans having a “significant impact on the residential amenity of the local area”, which is “made up of all single-family residential dwellings”, and the HMO “altering” the local area’s character.

In addition, Hendon ward councillors said the “scale of the development is insufficient and would not provide an appropriate level of amenity for potential occupants”.

The application was formally considered by the Planning and Highways Committee at City Hall on September 30, 2024.

A report prepared by council officers recommended the retrospective application for refusal, and said it would “provide a sub-standard level of accommodation, given the limited communal space, to the detriment of the residential amenities and living conditions of occupiers”.

Council planners added the change of use would “introduce an uncharacteristic form of residential accommodation to the street and locality, to the detriment of the amenity of the locality”.

This included the HMO with up to six residents being “out of keeping” with its surroundings and representing an “overly intensive use” of the property.

After being put to the vote, councillors on the Planning and Highways Committee voted unanimously to reject the HMO plan.

Councillor Michael Dixon raised concerns about the parking impacts linked to the development and the long-term impacts if the HMO was approved.

“The key issue here is the fact that although it’s occupied in a certain way at the moment, if the application was granted you would be leaving it open to a HMO for the future,” he said.

“The [planning officer’s] conclusions here are perfectly correct and I think it’s a good report and I’m going to go along with it.”

Councillor Iain Scott added: “The concerns around amenity for those in the local area are key and also the amenity of those who are potentially going to be living there.

“I believe that the communal space that’s existing in the plan is certainly not big enough, it provides those that are living there with just a small space.

“HMOs certainly have a place but they shouldn’t be at the expense of residents around them and those living there.”

Councillor Melanie Thornton, chair of the Planning and Highways Committee, also agreed with the refusal recommendation from council planning officers.

“I don’t feel that the HMO affords current occupants and future occupants with an appropriate level of space,“ she added.

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