Eight-bed HMO plan for South Shields cul-de-sac thrown out for second time over parking and road safety issues
Plans for a house in multiple occupation (HMO) in a South Shields street have been rejected for a second time by council development chiefs over parking and highway safety issues.
South Tyneside Council’s planning department has blocked an application for 3 Dean Terrace in the town’s Simonside and Rekendyke ward.
The site was previously the focus of a development aiming to provide 10 HMO bedrooms, including seven bedsits, however the plans sparked public opposition during a consultation exercise, with formal objections and petitions lodged.
A fresh application from the same applicant Scott-James Properties Ltd was submitted earlier this year (2025) in a bid to revive the plan, this time seeking permission for a smaller HMO scheme.
The final proposals, following amended plans being submitted during the planning process, included ‘one bedsit’ and a ‘seven en-suite bedroom HMO’.
Developers stressed the HMO scheme had responded to previous issues raised by South Tyneside planners and said plans “highlighted an opportunity to provide a waiting / turning area on Dean Terrace” to “allow turning movements” for visitors and residents.
It was also noted that the site was in a “highly accessible location close to a wide range of local facilities” and that parking demand for new residents could be met through existing on-street parking and public car parks.
After considering the planning application and assessing it against planning policies, South Tyneside Council’s planning department refused it on April 3, 2025.
Council planners, in a decision report, noted the proposal would not have a “detrimental impact in terms of visual amenity, ecological impacts, or upon the impact on crime and anti- social behaviour”.
However, the main reason for refusal included the lack of parking provided and highway safety fears due to the increased level of “comings and goings” within a “high density terrace, towards the end of a narrow cul-de-sac and within an area characterised by predominantly family housing”.
The council decision report states: “The application property is situated in a locality comprised of predominantly single-family dwellings.
“Furthermore, Dean Terrace itself comprises high density terraced dwellings and is a cul-de-sac having restricted vehicle turning space with the application property being located towards the end of the cul-de-sac and the proposals provide for no off-street car parking with on-street car parking space in the surrounding locality being constrained.
“Having regard to all of the above, the intensity of residential use proposed at the property would be harmful to the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers and highway safety given the level of increased comings and goings and vehicle parking and manoeuvring from residents, visitors and deliveries associated with use of the property.”
Council planners noted that as there are no licensed HMOs recorded on the street, the development would “be out of keeping with the level of occupation to the immediate surrounding area”.
It was argued that the plans would “materially change the existing character of this particular property on the street of which it forms a part” and would “have an unacceptable adverse impact on the living conditions of surrounding local residents.”
The second council refusal ruling also followed another public consultation exercise which saw nine letters of objection received raising a range of concerns, from “limited parking” and anti-social behaviour, to decreased property values and increased noise and disturbance.
Council planners said they were concerned about the impact on the street from “up to eight unrelated persons plus associated visitors occupying this property” and “greater comings and goings and more intensive use of the property than a normal family home”.
On highways issues and a submitted ‘parking stress survey’, the council decision report said: “Dean Terrace is not sufficiently wide to accommodate parking on both sides of the carriageway at the same time.
“So, there are realistically limited to zero parking opportunities on Dean Terrace and any reference to space on the southside of the carriageway being underutilised is misleading and inaccurate, with there being no capacity, particularly given that parking on the junction with Dean Road creates in itself, highway safety concerns”.
It was noted that the HMO development was “likely to have an impacton on-street parking in the vicinity of the site” and would be “likely to result in disputes, nuisance and potentially highway safety concerns if indiscriminately parked vehicles get dispersed further from the development site.”
Although council planners noted the provision of the no parking/ turning area proposed by the applicant “would gain some support for the proposal in terms of highway safety”, it was concluded that “this benefit would not outweigh the impact the proposal would have upon on-street parking pressures in the area.”
A house in multiple occupation is a property type where multiple households live together, with individual bedrooms and some communal facilities including kitchen areas, living space and bathroom facilities.
Developers previously said the plans for 3 Dean Terrace aimed to “take all opportunities to provide genuinely high quality design whilst accepting the constraint of using an existing building in a tight-knit urban context”.
Those behind the scheme acknowledged the initially proposed HMO scheme “provided poor quality accommodation” in relation to some rooms and stressed the new scheme had resolved previous issues.
A planning statement submitted to council officials also noted the plans would respond to “the long-term under use of the vacant unit” and would not lead to an over concentration of HMOs in the area.
The applicant has the right to challenge the council’s refusal ruling by lodging an appeal with the Secretary of State.
For more information on the planning application and council ruling, visit South Tyneside Council’s planning portal website and search application reference number: 250090