Developers' controversial plans for South Tyneside house blocked after council orders immediate crackdown

South Tyneside Council’s Planning Committee, at a meeting this week, discussed and voted on plans for 110 Glen Street in the borough’s Hebburn North ward.

Plans from applicant Soyca Ltd were seeking permission for the change of use from a four-bedroom residential dwelling to a “six-bedroom, six-person HMO” with a shared kitchen / dining area.

The application falls against a backdrop of South Tyneside Council’s recent decision to launch an “immediate” borough-wide Article 4 Direction removing permitted development rights for small HMOs, meaning that planning permission is now needed for all HMOs across the borough.

A planning application from developers for 110 Glen Street in Hebburn noted work already started on the property in August, 2025, but that the “work or change of use has not been completed.”

There was no supporting planning statement document available to view on South Tyneside Council’s planning portal website providing details of the proposed HMO’s target occupiers or management.

However, the agent for the scheme was listed as Beaumont and Partners which has been providing supporting documents for a number of recent HMO applications submitted to local authority planners.

In other applications represented by the planning agent, it was noted that its properties are “professionally designed and managed” and aimed at “young working professionals” and that there is a “dedicated property manager with a set of guidelines” covering areas such as preventing antisocial behaviour and property maintenance.

South Tyneside Council’s planning department, in a report published ahead of a decision-making Planning Committee this week, had recommended the HMO for approval.

Council planners said the “greatest weight in deciding this application needs to be given to the NPPF [national planning policy framework] as opposed to local planning policy, given that the application includes housing development and the council’s housing land supply/delivery deficiencies”.

It was noted that the proposal would “provide social and economic gains by contributing to reducing the current shortfall in terms of housing supply” and that “no significant harm or adverse impacts have been identified in respect of visual and residential amenity, biodiversity, highway safety, or in respect of crime/antisocial behaviour/fear of crime and flood risk/drainage.”

During a council public consultation exercise on the plans however, the HMO plan sparked 28 objections raising a number of concerns, ranging from increased car parking pressures and loss of a family home, to “strain on local services”, loss of privacy and impacts on “local character and community cohesion.”

The HMO application was called into the Planning Committee by Hebburn South ward councillor Angela Lamonte due to what a council report described as the “councillor’s concerns about the application type.”

The HMO application was formally discussed by the decision-making panel at South Shields Town Hall on Monday (March 16, 2026).

Council planners, in response to antisocial behaviour concerns, noted that a licence for the HMO, granted via the council, would “place obligations” on the licence holder around the use of the property.

It was also noted that the site was in a “sustainable location” close to Hebburn town centre and public transport links and that the development would provide cycle parking in a rear yard.

Councillor Joan Hamilton raised concerns about parking issues in the context of a major extra care scheme being developed near the application site.

Despite Cllr Hamilton’s concerns about a “major problem with parking around that area”, council planners said a previous planning decision on the care scheme had deemed the level of parking acceptable.

Councillor Shirley Ford said she had concerns about the “impact of the increased demand for parking in this street”.

While acknowledging community concerns about the number of other HMOs in the area, the councillor said that due to their distance from the application site, this would “not be a robust enough reason to reject this application.”

Following discussion with council planning officers, the Planning Committee went on to vote unanimously to reject the application on several grounds.

The motion to refuse the application from Cllr Ford was on the basis of the “significant harm to residential amenity and the character of the area that this development would bring.”

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

For more information on the plan and council decision, visit South Tyneside Council’s planning portal website and search reference: 250784