HMO plans refused for Sunderland street after concerns over living conditions and parking

Sunderland City Council’s planning department has blocked an application for 2 Worcester Street in the city’s St Michael’s ward.

The building sits on the corner of Worcester Street and Alice Street, near the Ivy House pub, and includes both a retail unit and dwelling.

New proposals for the site, submitted earlier this year, aimed to change the use of part of the property into a four-bedroom HMO, a property type which involves several households living together with communal facilities.

The application follows a recent grant of planning permission for the formation of a new entrance at Alice Street to provide “separate dwelling and retail properties”.

Under submitted HMO plans, four bedrooms and two bathrooms were proposed on the first floor along with a communal living room and kitchen on the ground floor.

During a council public consultation exercise on the plan, four letters of objection were received raising concerns about anti-social behaviour, parking pressures and a “decline in property prices”.

After considering the planning application and assessing it against planning policies, Sunderland City Council’s planning department refused it on December 14, 2023.

A council decision report listed four reasons for refusal, including the HMO clashing with planning guidance and a policy in the council’s local plan.

This was because the HMO would “result in the number of HMOs exceeding 10 per cent of all residential properties within 100 metres of the application site, leading to an overconcentration of HMOs within the vicinity”.

Council planners noted that the number of HMOs within 100 metres of the site already exceeded this threshold, with “38 existing HMO (excluding the application site)”.

Other reasons for refusal included the proposed HMO providing a “sub-standard level of accommodation and amenity” and plans being an “inappropriate development” likely to impact on future occupants and neighbours.

Planning documents referenced concerns about the development potentially being a “source of noise, disturbance and anti-social behaviour by the occupants of the site”.

The final reason for refusal was related to road safety with the development “leading to the attraction of vehicles to and from the site and without adequate off-street parking facilities”.

The council decision report adds: “For the reasons given above, the proposed development has been found to be unacceptable in principle.

“In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it will result in a substandard level of accommodation to the detriment of the amenities of the potential occupiers, will be harmful to the character and amenities of the locality, and is likely to attract vehicles to the site and, without adequate off-street parking, will lead to conditions prejudicial to pedestrian and highway safety”.

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

For more information on the planning application or to track its progress, visit the council’s planning portal website and search reference: 23/02210/FUL