South Shields: Shock verdict on bid for 42 flats in area becoming 'no-go zone'

South Tyneside Council’s Planning Committee, at a meeting this week, voted unanimously to refuse an application for a large building in Ocean Road, which sits on the corner with Anderson Street.

The site comprises the existing ground floor Workwear and Schoolwear Company unit, the former Roxanne’s nightclub in the basement and a bar / nightclub space across the upper floors, planning documents state.

Plans for the site submitted back in January, 2025, aimed to retain the ground floor shop unit and redevelop the rest of the building, including extending it upwards, to create dozens of new residential flats.

This included plans for 30 self-contained studio flats and two six-bed houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) or ‘cluster apartments’, with the project described in submitted plans as “student accommodation”.

The proposed development from applicant Regal Property Stroud Ltd included the “construction of a new mansard roof to create a third floor”, along with demolishing the existing “glazed stair” and constructing a new stair/lift entrance.

A design and access statement submitted with the plans described the development as “residential co-living” with 42 flats in total, including a large number of one-bedroom studios and two “cluster co-living apartments”.

Communal kitchens across upper floors were also proposed, along with the basement including a student social / study space, a gym, a cinema room, toilets , storage areas and cycle storage, according to proposed floor plans.

Developers said the proposed development would “contribute positively to the area” and that the proposed design aimed to create a “balance between modern living needs, accessibility and maintaining some elements of the [building’s] existing structure/character.”

During a council consultation exercise on the plans however there was public opposition, with around 42 objections having been submitted to the local authority when the plans were discussed by councillors this week.

The objectors’ concerns, summarised in a council committee report, included the plans resulting in an “overconcentration of HMOs”, antisocial behaviour, the “nature of future occupants”, pressure on local services, the “lack of car and cycle parking”, noise pollution, drainage and more.

The plans first went before South Tyneside Council’s Planning Committee in July, 2025, but a decision was deferred as part of efforts to give objectors a final chance to have their say.

The proposals then returned to a Planning Committee meeting in August, 2025, but according to official council minutes, a decision on the scheme was deferred again following a request for the council’s planning department to “discuss matters with the applicant about concierge services in the building, the HMOs either being removed to afford more space for the apartments, or for the HMOs to also be student only.”

The planning application returned to the Planning Committee on October 20, 2025, where council planning officers again recommended the scheme for approval.

A report prepared for councillors said that “the applicant has confirmed that the entire development would be for the sole use of those registered as full-time students” and that “the retail unit would remain to the ground floor.”

A planning condition was also proposed limiting the flats to student use, described as “persons registered as full-time students with an educational establishment during the currency of their registration.”

However, several concerns were raised by councillors at the meeting about the development’s impact on the character of the area and the existing number of HMOs in South Shields, along with concerns about increased parking demand, antisocial behaviour from tenants, bin storage and collection arrangements and more.

There were fears that if plans for student flats were approved, developers could subsequently apply to the council to change the development and effectively broaden the scope of the type of tenants who can live there.

Several councillors also raised concerns about the development’s impact on the existing ground floor business, including impacts on deliveries, access issues and the negative impact of the wider flats development reducing ground floor retail floorspace at the address.

Councillor Paul Dean said “alarm bells sounded” when he saw the number of public objections and noted concerns from the police around parking availability in the area and increased demand from the development.

While welcoming the proposed restrictions around student occupancy, Cllr Dean asked how the development would be “monitored and checked”, with council planners stating the applicant could investigate where necessary and that the proposed HMOs would be licensed by the council.

Councillor David Kennedy said there were general public concerns about HMOs, the types of tenants housed in these properties and associated impacts, including antisocial behaviour, and said South Shields town centre “is in danger of becoming a no-go zone thanks to these [HMOs]”.

Cllr Kennedy also questioned how much student accommodation the town needed and whether the proposed flats would be affordable, and raised concerns about developers asking for the student accommodation condition to be removed in future.

Other concerns included the lack of a concierge service, the level of enforcement around the applicant’s “tenant handbook”, car parking availability, bin collection arrangements, overlooking at the rear of the development and a reduction in retail space and associated impacts on the existing business at the site, which was described as offering a “bespoke use”.

In this context, Cllr Kennedy said the development created a risk of “chasing employment away from the town centre.”

Councillor Kate Owens-Palmer said concierge services linked to student accommodation were “vital for maintaining and managing the service” and raised concerns about the lack of monitoring at the Ocean Road site.

Councillor Paul Brenen added the proposed location for the development was “a bad idea” and said there was “enough student accommodation already” and that the plans would “change the character of the local area.”

Councillor Shirley Ford also raised concerns about the lack of a full-time concierge service and questioned who would monitor and enforce issues around whether residents at the development were registered in full-time education, as well as raising concerns about privacy impacts on neighbours and impacts on neighbouring businesses and the existing ground floor business.

Councillor Joan Hamilton described the ground floor tenant at the Ocean Road site as a “unique business” due to the service it provides and raised concerns about parking impacts and the future occupancy of the flats development if plans were approved.

“I know they said this is for students but I think in a short space of time it will be flipped so that it will accommodate anybody and everybody,” Cllr Hamilton added.

Council planners, in a report to the committee, said “the proposed development is considered to result in no significant harm and [would] be acceptable in terms of the planning balance and in terms of the principle of the uses proposed and its impact on residential and visual amenity,crime/antisocial behaviour, highway safety/parking, biodiversity, flood risk and drainage.”

Following a lengthy discussion however, the council’s Planning Committee voted unanimously to reject the plans against the recommendation of council planning officers.

Five reasons for refusal were agreed by councillors on the panel, including “inadequate car parking” and “the impact on the character and amenity of the area” in terms of the lack of a concierge service for the development and the “cumulative impacts”.

Other reasons for refusal included overlooking and privacy impacts to the rear of the flats development, highway safety concerns related to bin refuse collection and safety concerns surrounding the servicing of the existing retail business (post-development) around deliveries.

A previous design and access statement from developers said the “intended use for this development is to provide high quality serviced co-living accommodation and commercial space.”

The supporting document added: “The business use case for this proposal is to turn what has been a run down vacant nightclub into a project which can contribute positively to the area, offer high-quality living and commercial space, and promote sustainability and inclusivity throughout.

“Introducing residential spaces in the heart of the community can foster a more integrated neighbourhood. New residents can bring diversity and contribute to the social fabric of the area.

“We believe that new residential developments can attract local businesses, including cafés, shops, and other services catering to the needs of residents.

“The proposal of new residential flats with the commercial ground floor can stimulate the local economy and create job opportunities.”

The applicant has the right to challenge the council’s refusal decision by lodging an appeal with the national Planning Inspectorate.

For more information on the plan and council decision, visit South Tyneside Council’s planning portal website and search application reference number: ST/0740/24

For the latest public notices from your area, please visit: https://publicnoticeportal.uk/