Sunderland City Council's planning and highways committee has unanimously refused plans for a six-bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO) above the MH Market shop at 173 Roker Avenue, Roker. The decision, made on Monday, October 19, followed concerns that the development would contribute to an "overconcentration" of HMOs in the area.
A council report stated that, had the application been approved, it would have brought the total number of HMOs within 100m of the site to eight. Planning officers maintained the scheme was "unacceptable in principle" under planning policy terms, as it "would be harmful to the character and amenities of the area due to the existing high concentration of HMOs within 100m radius of the site".
Objections and Referral
The application received 13 public objections, highlighting concerns about the overconcentration of HMOs locally, insufficient parking, noise and privacy impacts, and antisocial behaviour. Roker's three ward councillors also made submissions, with Councillor Andrew Ramsey referring the plan to the planning and highways committee for determination.
The HMO was intended to offer five double rooms and one single room, accommodating a maximum of 11 occupants. Planning documents revealed that work had already commenced on the property but remained incomplete, with plans showing six en-suite bedrooms and utilising part of the ground floor as a kitchen and lounge area.
Applicant's Arguments and Decision
A planning statement submitted by Halo's Luxury Homes & Architecture Vision Ltd stated that the professionally-managed HMO would "meet the needs of people who require flexible housing close to employment and education". The applicants also noted that refurbishment works had transformed the "neglected building" into a "safe, attractive and energy-efficient building", adding that a structured management regime would help "minimise disturbance".
While council officers raised no objections regarding room sizes or highway and pedestrian safety, they concluded that the HMO proposal would be "harmful to the character of the area". At the meeting, the applicant urged councillors to weigh up the community benefits of the scheme alongside the improvements made to the building, but the committee voted unanimously to throw out the application. The applicant retains the right to lodge an appeal.
