Nine-person HMO at 83 Thompson Road, Sunderland

What was proposed

The application sought to change a six-bedroom, six-person HMO into a six-bedroom, nine-person HMO through double occupancy in three bedrooms.

“Proposal: Proposed change of use from C4 (6 bed, 6 person) HMO to a 6 bed, 9 person HMO (Sui Generis) by allowing double occupancy in Bedrooms 1, 3, and 4. (Travel plan received 19.02.2026).”

“The current application seeks planning permission for a change of use from a 6 bed, 6 person House in Multiple Occupation ('HMO') (Use Class C4) to a 6 bed, 9 person HMO (Sui Generis) which is to be achieved courtesy of double occupation of bedrooms 1, 3, and 4. Excepting erection of a waste bin storage shelter (which would not, in of itself, require planning permission) within the rear yard, no external works are proposed.”

Officer report

The site

The property is a two-storey mid-terrace house in a wholly residential setting, adjoining properties on both sides and served by a rear lane.

“The application property is a two storey mid terrace property located within a wholly residential setting in Sunderland. The application property is set back from the public highway and footway which bound the front of the property.”

Officer report

Existing use

A lawful development certificate established the existing six-bedroom HMO use in May 2025 without requiring planning permission.

“The current use of the property is a 6no. bed, 6no. person House in Multiple Occupation ('HMO') (Use Class C4), which was authorised for planning purposes following the approval of a Lawful Development Certificate in May 2025 (application ref. 25/00665/CLP). This established that the change of use of the existing dwellinghouse to a 6no.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke in support of the proposal and answered members’ questions about parking, cycling, and whether couples could occupy rooms.

What members considered

The applicant said research indicated tenants would not have cars, the garage had become cycle storage, and the property could not accommodate families.

“The Chairperson thanked the Officer for their presentation and introduced [name withheld] as the applicant who wished to speak in support to the proposal. [name withheld] addressed the Committee advising that it was initially recommended that this application be minded to approve and the new recommendation for refusal was based upon an assumption.”

“Research undertaken on the car parking showed that the renters of the properties wouldn’t have cars and HMO tenants fell within this bracket based on affordability and transport links the users were expected to be students and Nissan workers so the assumption that there were 6 rooms, therefore 6 cars was incorrect. The garage had also been converted into a cycling store and due to the building limitations it could not cater to families.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused planning permission for the reason contained in the report.

“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:-”

“RESOLVED that Members REFUSE planning permission for the reason contained within the report…”

Minutes