Sunderland council decides on unacceptable and harmful housing plan throwing Millfield off balance

Sunderland City Council’s planning department has refused an application for 3 Riversdale Terrace in the city’s Millfield ward.

Plans submitted earlier this year (2025) aimed to convert the property from an “existing dwelling’ to a “seven-bed HMO” with seven bedrooms across three floors proposed, plus a communal kitchen / dining area.

Plans showed all proposed HMO bedrooms offering an ensuite bathroom and some bedrooms served by “designated kitchenettes”.

The initial proposed site plan also stated there would be a bin storage area in a rear yard and noted no parking would be provided, although plans were later amended to provide one parking space.

During a council public consultation exercise on the plans, there were no comments submitted.

Council planners also concluded the proposed HMO would “result in adequate living space and an acceptable standard of amenity for future occupants of the building.”

After considering the planning application however, Sunderland City Council’s planning department refused it on July 11, 2025, citing two main refusal reasons.

This included the plans clashing with existing council planning guidance around the “management of HMO development” on Wearside.

In the case of 3 Riversdale Terrace, council planners said the proposal would “result in the number of HMOs exceeding 10 per cent of all residential properties within 100 metres of the application site”.

It was argued that the new HMO would “lead to an overconcentration of HMOswithin 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”.

It was argued that the HMO plan would “work against the aim of creating places that are safe, inclusive and accessible, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience”.

Council planners also noted that the new HMO, if approved, would “result in 22 HMOs within 100 metres”, representing a “14.3 per cent concentration in HMOs within 100 metres of the site”.

Issues raised by police 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 council decision report adds: “Although there is an acknowledged role for HMO accommodation within the city, in providing affordable and flexible accommodation, increased numbers of multiple occupancy properties can have the potential to create harmful impacts.

“These impacts can include a reduction in social cohesion and tenure imbalance with a shift from permanent family homes to more transient accommodation as well as increased noise and disturbance, resulting from an increase in the transient population of areas.

“As such, over concentrations within neighbourhoods can lead to imbalanced and unsustainable communities and can damage the residential amenity and character of surrounding areas.”

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

For more information on the planning application, or to track its progress, visit Sunderland City Council’s planning portal website and search reference: 25/00533/FUL