Developers ready to fight planning block for South Shields house over parking and road safety fears
Plans for a house in multiple occupation (HMO) in South Shields, recently blocked by council planning officers, are set to be decided by a Government-appointed planning inspector.
An appeal has been lodged against South Tyneside Council’s decision to refuse plans for 3 Dean Terrace in the town’s Simonside and Rekendyke ward.
The site was recently the focus of a development aiming to convert the property into “eight habitable rooms” with communal areas as part of a HMO.
Developers stressed the HMO scheme had responded to previous issues raised by South Tyneside planners and said revised plans “highlighted an opportunity to provide a waiting / turning area on Dean Terrace” to “allow turning movements” for visitors and residents.
Applicants said 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.
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”.
Council planners noted at the time that there were no licensed HMOs recorded on the street and that the development would “be out of keeping with the level of occupation to the immediate surrounding area”.
It was also 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.”
It has since been confirmed that the applicant is contesting the council refusal decision and has submitted an appeal to the national Planning Inspectorate.
A planning inspector will now be appointed by the Secretary of State to rule on the matter, which could see the council’s refusal decision being upheld or thrown out.
A number of appeal documents have been published on the council’s public planning portal website, including an “appeal statement” prepared on behalf of Scott-James Properties Ltd setting out the appellant’s case why the development should be allowed.
Appellants said “whilst the subject property was clearly designed as a large family house, it has not been occupied in that form for a considerable period” and that the new development would “not provide self-contained living units, as none of these have kitchen facilities”.
It was also noted that previous reference to a self-contained bedsit in the plans was an “error” and that the “design intent is for all rooms to rely on shared facilities at the ground floor including the generous kitchen and communal areas”.
Those behind the appeal argued the HMO scheme would “not result in materially increased parking demand over and above the fallback positions” for the site, including “re-occupation as a C3 family dwelling and conversion to C4 HMO use for up to six persons”.
It was also noted that these fallback schemes would not be “subject to controls” for “delivery of in-curtilage cycle parking”, “commitment to resident and visitor parking management protocols” and “commitment to fund [a] traffic regulation order to enable [a] turning head on Dean Terrace”.
The appellant said the proposed HMO scheme would provide “mitigation measures” and that a turning head “would mean that all of the traffic utilising Dean Terrace would be able to exit onto Dean Road in forward gear which would be a considerable safety improvement over the existing situation”.
The appeal statement also said the appellant “would accept a planning condition or other control which would require tenants and their visitors to park at the rear of the property (on Wharfedale Drive) and for deliveries to the property to also use Wharfedale Drive”.
Those behind the HMO scheme said they “do not accept that the proposed development would result in any adverse implications relative to highway safety, and that in reality it is the development itself which provides theonly opportunity to improve highway safety from the existing position”.
On concerns about increased “comings and goings”, the appellant made similar arguments about the highways mitigation measures proposed for the scheme and associated benefits.
This included the turning head “allowing vehicles to leave Dean Terrace in forward gear”, with the development “providing the mechanism to overcome an existing constraint which provides a benefit to current residents”.
On residential amenity impacts, it was noted that the proposal is “comprised solely of en-suite bedrooms which all rely upon the large shared kitchen and living space provided at ground floor”, as well as “external areas for the residents to enjoy”.
In this context, it was argued that “issues which are then flagged in terms of the potential for personal isolation and inter-resident conflicts are therefore negated through this revised and improved scheme”.
The appellant said they would also agree to “the imposition of a planning condition to secure the provision of a robust HMO management plan”.
The appeal statement’s conclusion added South Tyneside Council had previously identified HMOs as an “important element of housing stock which are popular choices for those with limited incomes or who seek more flexibility”.
It was noted that the council, through the planning process, aims to “ensure that a high standard of accommodation is created”.
The appellant, referencing the Dean Terrace site, said the “vacant building in the urban area […] should be supporting the council’s ambitions to meet housing needs” and that the scheme provided “extensive shared facilities within the building and in the remainder of the site (such as cycle parking, bin enclosures [and] lawned areas all of which would be screened)”.
It was also reinforced that the appellant had “provided a commitment to funding a Traffic Regulation Order to create a turning head providing broad-based benefits to existing and new users of Dean Terrace” and was committed to other “planning controls” around “parking and delivery movements”.
The appeal statement adds: “This is a well-considered appeal that meets the objectives of pertinent policy and will secure contribution towards identified housing needs.
“This weighs in favour of the scheme and we recommend that the inspector follows NPPF [National Planning Policy Framework] advice and approves the scheme without delay.”
The site was previously the focus of a development from Scott-James Properties Ltd aiming to provide a larger HMO, however the plans sparked public opposition during a council consultation exercise, with formal objections and petitions lodged.
The new application seeking permission for a smaller HMO scheme, which is now subject to appeal, is from the same applicant.
An update on the appeal will be published on the Planning Inspectorate’s website once a decision has been made.
For more information on the planning application and appeal, visit South Tyneside Council’s planning portal website and search reference: 250090
For the latest public notices from your area, please visit: https://publicnoticeportal.uk/