Major update on future of South Tyneside family home after hundreds hit out at developers' vision

South Tyneside Council’s Planning Committee, at a meeting this week, discussed and voted on plans for 33 Coquet Street in the borough’s Monkton ward.

Developers were seeking permission to convert the four-bedroom property from a residential dwelling planning class to a “six-person HMO” with a shared kitchen/dining room.

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 noted that HMO conversion work started at 33 Coquet Street back in April, 2025, but at the time of the application in December, 2025, had not been completed.

A planning statement from developers also said the HMO would be “professionally designed and managed” and aimed at “young working professionals” and that the property would have a “dedicated property manager with a set of guidelines”, covering areas such as preventing antisocial behaviour and property maintenance.

It was argued that the site was “sustainably located within close proximity to local bus routes, shops, and public open spaces” and would “make an efficient use of existing housing stock, providing additional, high-quality accommodation that supports local housing needs without adversely impacting the character of the area or the amenities of neighbouring occupiers”.

Developers also argued that “given the minimal change in the bedrooms […] the comings and goings of six tenants will not be significantly greater than those of a family unit” and that the HMO could be “easily absorbed into the neighbourhood.”

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 consultation exercise on the plans however, the HMO plan sparked significant opposition with formal objections and a separate petition submitted to the council’s planning department.

In an update to South Tyneside Council’s Planning Committee this week, it was noted that the HMO plan had attracted around 226 formal objections and a petition in opposition with around 697 signatures.

The HMO application was called into the Planning Committee by Fellgate and Hedworth councillor Geraldine Kilgour who raised several concerns, including the plans being “incongruous with the family homes in the area” and concerns around “overdevelopment, car parking issues and lack of amenity.”

The formal public objections to the HMO, set out in a council report, ranged from visual amenity and increased parking and traffic in the street, to impacts on the character of the area from “introducing a transient population” and residential amenity impacts from increased noise and disturbance.

Other concerns included the “intensification of use” linked to the change from a family home to a HMO, the cumulative impact of HMOs in the wider area and more.

In response to objectors’ comments that the property is currently occupied, a council planning report confirmed that “investigations have concluded that the property is currently being advertised and used for short term holiday/contractor lettings, with small numbers of individuals occupying the property at any one time”.

However, the council report said “such a use of the property is not considered a material change of use from the existing lawful use of the property as a dwelling and therefore planning permission is not required from the council.”

The Coquet Street HMO application was discussed during a meeting of the Planning Committee at South Shields Town Hall on Monday (March 16, 2026) where objectors made their case for the plans to be refused.

A total of eight speakers, including Cllr Kilgour and several neighbours, made representations to the Planning Committee outlining concerns about the impacts of the HMO if plans were approved.

Concerns included impacts on community cohesion, increased comings and goings from tenants and visitors, the loss of a family home, impacts on residential amenity, parking pressures and more and it was argued that the harms of the HMO scheme outweighed the benefits.

Council planners noted the planning system is concerned with the use of land, rather than users of the property, and noted that issues around management and potential antisocial behaviour would be controlled via the council’s HMO licensing process.

During discussion, councillors raised concerns about the impact of a new HMO conversion in the middle of a terrace which includes both family homes and bungalows occupied by elderly people.

Councillor Joan Hamilton raised concerns about the HMO being used by “anybody and everybody” and said that even if young professionals lived at the property in future, there would be traffic impacts from “excess cars in the area.”

Despite a planning condition restricting the “maximum occupancy” of the proposed HMO to “six persons”, Cllr Hamilton also raised concerns about “the potential for 12 people there.”

Councillor Paul Brenen noted the “sheer weight” of public opposition and raised concerns about parking pressures and the proposal “changing the nature” of a “quiet street” which includes family homes and bungalows.

“The sheer amount of people objecting to this […] they’re all saying the same thing, it’s a no brainer to me and we should reject this application,” Cllr Brenen added.

Councillor Paul Dean also noted the level of public opposition and said his main concerns related to highways and parking safety and the site’s close proximity to schools and elderly sheltered accommodation.

Meanwhile, councillor Chris Davies also recognised the “strength of everyone’s representations” against the proposal and noted the HMO would cause “significant harm” in planning terms in relation to community amenity and highway safety.

After being put to the vote, the HMO plan was rejected unanimously by the Planning Committee and several refusal reasons were cited.

The refusal motion, proposed by councillor Shirley Ford, was based on highway safety and parking impacts and impacts on residential amenity and the character of the area.

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 HMO plan and council decision, visit South Tyneside Council’s planning portal website and search reference: 250756