Seven-bedroom co-living property at 38 Toward Road, Sunderland

What was proposed

The application proposed converting a six-bedroom dwelling into seven-bedroom co-living accommodation with en-suite rooms, shared facilities, fencing, cycle storage and two parking spaces.

“Proposal: Conversion of 6no bedroom residential dwelling to 7no bedroom Co-Living property (Sui Generis) including associated external changes.”

“The planning application seeks to convert a terraced 6 no. bedroom residential dwelling (use class C3) to a 7no. bedroom Co-Living property (Sui Generis use) including associated external changes. The property fronts Toward Road and the area is primarily residential, although a caravan storage business is opposite the site. The property and wider terrace is in a poor state of repair.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A 13-bedroom HMO was refused in 2023, and a previous co-living application was refused in 2025 for poor residential amenity.

“25/01794/FUL 38 Toward Road, change of use to co-living accommodation - refused planning permission on 26.11.2025 on grounds of accommodation providing poor standard of residential amenity.”

“The proposed development would result in an inadequate level of residential amenity for potential occupants due to poor outlook from ground floor rear bedrooms and the poor standard of shared internal amenity space being available in the subject property. The proposed amenity space would be situated in the basement where the only form of natural light would be served by the proposed 2 no.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions and a legal agreement securing a coastal mitigation contribution, with refusal if the agreement was not completed.

“Therefore, it is recommended that Members are minded to approve the application subject to the conditions below and satisfactory agreement of the Section 106 Agreement/Unilateral Undertaking.”

“(a) APPROVE, subject to the recommended schedule of draft conditions and the completion of a legal agreement to secure contribution to Coastal Mitigation Strategy.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the bedrooms, shared areas, outlook, transport access and local context acceptable, and found no significant harm to amenity, highways, character or ecology.

“The subject property is a large dwelling with 6 bedrooms and given this, it is considered that its use as a 7-bed co-living property would not necessarily be of a significantly greater intensity that would result in harm to local amenity.”

“Conclusion The proposal will provide potential occupiers with an acceptable standard level of living and shared amenity space. For the reasons given above, the proposed development has been found to be broadly acceptable in principle in terms of its impact on visual/residential amenity, highway safety, character and appearance, ecology and crime/anti social behaviour..”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Environmental Health proposed a noise-related condition, Future Transport had no observations, Planning Policy found no excessive HMO concentration, and Police raised no objection.

“The Council's Public Protection and Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) team referred to the submitted Noise Impact Assessment and provided a suggested condition be placed on any decision notice, requiring that prior to occupation, final details of glazing and ventilation specifications be submitted to and approved in writing to the LPA, as set out within table 1 of the aforementioned assessment.”

“The Council's Future Transport team have no observations to make.”

Officer report

What people said

An anonymous representation challenged the daylight assessment and raised concerns about parking, highway safety, bus routes and the concentration of HMO-type accommodation.

“Neighbours - An anonymous representation has been received, which questions the accuracy and conclusions of the submitted daylight and sunlight assessment (suggesting internal conditions will be poorer than it suggests), impacts on parking, highway safety and the safe operation of bus routes and the cumulation of HMO-type accommodation in the area.”

“Residents in co-living developments typically exhibit lower levels of car ownership. Nevertheless, two parking spaces have been provided at the rear of the property, alongside eight secure bicycle spaces (equivalent to one per room, with an additional space available for visitors). Multiple site visits (at different times of day) have not identified any parking issues; the single image provided depicts workers' vans unrelated to this property.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent told the committee that the proposal would bring the property back into use and provide a positive use for the building.

Committee discussion

Councillor Dixon welcomed the application, saying it would enhance the area and could be one of many improvements.

“Councillor Dixon commented that he welcomed this application as it would enhance the area and he hoped this was one of many improvements to the area.”

“There being no further questions or comments from Members, the Chairperson put the Officers recommendation, as set out in the report to the Committee. it was:-”

Minutes

What was decided

Permission would be refused if the legal agreement securing the coastal mitigation contribution was not completed by 30 June 2026.

“(b) If the legal agreement is not completed by 30 June 2026 then REFUSE planning permission for the reason below:”

Minutes