We object to the application to change 33 Coquet Street from a C3 dwellinghouse to a C4 HMO (6 occupants; planning ref: 250756). The proposal would have an adverse impact on residential amenity and the character of our street and neighbourhood.

We also request referral to Planning Committee in order to enable further scrutiny and for local residents to voice their concerns.

Note: This petition helps show the level of concern, but individual written objections are vital in the planning process compared to a petition signature alone. Please sign and also submit your own objection in writing to the Council; details are found at the bottom of this text.

Bases for Objection

A. Harm to the quiet, settled and established character of the area.

This area characterised by low-density, single-household terraced housing and bungalows. It is a settled community with a demographic that predominantly includes families, elderly residents, and those with specific care needs (e.g., in Crusade Walk bungalows within 100 meters). The introduction of a high-density, transient 6-bed HMO in a mid-terraced house is not in-keeping with the established character of the locality. This will undermine the stability, cohesion, and sense of trust, safety and community that currently exists. Moreover, approving this C4 use in a street currently devoid of HMOs will set a precedent that it is an acceptable area for transient housing, further altering the settled residential character.

B. Noise, disturbance and loss of amenity.

Unlike a single family (C3) which operates as a cohesive unit, a 6-person HMO (C4) has six independent lifestyles. This intensification reasonably implies:

• Asynchronous movements: Six adults imply distinct work/social schedules, leading to frequent comings and goings early in the morning and late at night.
• Intensified noise transmission: Increased volume of talking, music, and movement through party walls.
• Higher visitor frequency: A greater number of visitors and short-stay guests compared to a single family.
• Servicing activity: A significant increase in deliveries, taxi pick-ups/drop-offs, and servicing vehicles.

The immediate neighbours, e.g. children and elderly residents in bungalows, are sensitive receptors. These residents are disproportionately vulnerable to increased noise and disturbances, which is compounded by the high intensification of the dwelling. There is a duty to protect the amenity and quiet enjoyment of these established residents.

C. Suitability and intensification of the dwelling.

The intensity of occupation is disproportionate and uncharacteristic relative to neighbouring properties, spreading six occupants across three floors and relying on the removal of conventional living spaces in order to increase bedroom numbers. This results in a highly intensified layout that degrades quality of life through loss of privacy and internal noise. 

Layout flaws include the ground floor front bedroom being 2-3 meters from the public pavement, causing lack of privacy and reliance on closed curtains / loss of daylight. The ground floor rear bedroom looks directly onto the confined rear yard which must accommodate all waste and cycles for six adults + two visitors, resulting in a poor outlook dominated by refuse bins and clutter, as well as potential odours and noise disturbance. Both ground floor units abut the high-traffic corridor to the exits and kitchen/diner.

By significantly limiting internal communal space, this environment increases the likelihood of occupants socialising in external areas (e.g. front street and back lane), directly impacting neighbouring amenity. The proposal also results in the loss of a C3 family dwelling in a quiet family-focussed area of Jarrow.

D. Parking, servicing and access: no on-site parking and no capacity evidence.

A 6-person HMO generates a fundamentally different parking demand than a single family; six adults could reasonably own 3-6 vehicles, which excludes servicing activity (deliveries, taxis, visitors). Coquet St and surrounding streets (Breamish St, Wansbeck Rd) already suffer from high parking pressure, particularly during off-peak times at evenings and weekends. The application fails to provide on-site vehicle parking or evidence of street capacity.

E. Cumulative impact of HMOs in the area.

The pace of HMO activity encroaching from the wider area (existing, advertised and proposed) is having a cumulative impact on the sense of stability and community. Examples raised by residents include the following properties/streets:

• 161 Wansbeck Road (under construction / under council investigation; within ~100m)
• 45 Wansbeck Road (HMO licence ref: STHMO 026)
• 10 North View (SpareRoom Ref 17963906)
• 195 Albert Road (SpareRoom Ref 18074763)
• 3–5 Birch Street (planning proposal submitted)
• 12 Surrey Street (planning permission refused)
• Approx. 7 Birch Street (SpareRoom Ref 18011205)
• Northbourne Road (SpareRoom Ref 18114588)
• Holly Street (OpenRent Ref 2453129)

Given this context, it is essential that cumulative impact is fully understood. The application should not be assessed in isolation without an evidenced local baseline and a clear assessment of cumulative impact, particularly given that HMOs are emerging seeking retrospective planning approval (e.g. 195 Albert Road).

F. Management and enforceability.

The application relies heavily on management intentions that are difficult to monitor and enforce over time. Any planning permission would run with the land regardless of future operator, and enforcement is typically reactive (after harm occurs). The proposal should therefore be assessed on the realistic likelihood of amenity harm in this quiet established residential area, not on optimistic assumptions about future management.

__________________________________________________________________

Details for Individual Objections

Planning reference: 250756
Deadline for comments: 30 January

Submit your objection (must be in writing)

Online: https://planning.southtyneside.info/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/NewApplicationsSearch.aspx
Email: planning@southtyneside.gov.uk
Post: Planning Group, Town Hall and Civic Offices, Westoe Road, South Shields, Tyne and Wear, NE33 2RL

If you wish to speak at Planning Committee, say you wish to do this in your objection.

Please include:

• Planning application reference: 250756
• Your full postal address (anonymous comments cannot be considered)
• Your comments/objection (brief is fine)
• Monkton Ward councillors (please email and ask for “call-in” to Planning Committee)
  Cllr Paul Dean: cllr.paul.dean@southtyneside.gov.uk
  Cllr Margaret Meling: Cllr.Margaret.Meling@southtyneside.gov.uk
  Cllr Joan Margaret Keegan: cllr.joan.margaret.keegan@southtyneside.gov.uk
  Ask them to:
  • Call in planning application 250756 for Planning Committee, and
  • Support residents’ concerns on planning grounds (amenity, parking/access, cumulative impact).