16-person HMO at 131 St Helens Street, Ipswich

What was proposed

The application sought to convert two shops into one 16-bedroom, 16-person HMO, with extensions, alterations, outbuilding changes and new cycle and refuse storage.

“26/00145/FUL Ward:ALEXANDRA Proposal:Change of use of no.131 and no.133 St Helens Street from shop (Use Class E) to 1no. 16 bedroom 16 person house in multiple occupation, including demolition of rear extensions and erection of new rear extensions, demolition of existing outbuildings and re-use of other existing outbuildings for incidental uses, changes to fenestrations, raising roof height of no.133, installation of three new rooflights to front roof slopes and three…”

Officer report

The site and its condition

The vacant buildings are in a conservation area, have shared rear yard space and outbuildings, and are in poor repair.

“1.Proposal 1.1. Planning permission is sought for the change of use of no.131 and no.133 St Helens Street from retail (Use Class E) to 1no. 16 bedroom 16 person house in multiple occupation, including demolition of rear extensions and erection of new rear extensions, demolition of existing outbuildings and re-use of other existing outbuildings for incidental uses, changes to fenestrations, raising roof height of no.133, installation of three new rooflights to front roof…”

“The buildings are in a poor state of repair, and a Sui Generis HMO use is proposed, understood from discussions with applicant to be the only financially viable option to bring the buildings back into use. 3.Consultations 3.1.”

Officer report

The main planning issue

Officers found that the proposal technically exceeded one HMO concentration measure but considered that good on-site amenity provision justified the exception.

“The exception rule being: Exemptions to the above guidelines for defining over-concentration will only be considered where it can be adequately demonstrated that the change of use to a HMO will not harm the amenity of the local area. 5.13.”

Officer report

Consultees’ views

Consultees raised sewer, drainage, bat, kitchen, flood, sound and air-quality matters, while conservation officers supported the external works.

“The applicant should raise the ground floor level to above flood levels to ensure the property does not flood. Suffolk County Council Ecology The building onsite exhibits numerous features such as lifted/missing tiles and raised lead flashing that could be used by bats as a roost. In order to confirm the presence/likely absence of bats at the site, it is essential bat emergence surveys are undertaken at the site.”

“Ipswich Borough Council Conservation and Urban Design Officer No objection to the removal of the poor-quality faux-timber cladding or the shopfront, neither of which has any aesthetic or architectural interest.No objection to the rationalisation of the roof, which will not harm the character or setting of the terrace or the wider streetscape. The proposed extensions to the rear would consolidate historic piecemeal additions.”

Officer report

Objections received

Objections concerned HMO overconcentration, parking and traffic, conservation area character, housing diversity and local parking pressure.

“Traffic congestion and parking demand. • Impact on the Conservation Area character. • Loss of potential housing diversity under policy DM19. As noted above, public re-consultation on the amended description and plans expires on 2 June 2026. Any consultation responses received after the publication of this report shall be provided at the Planning and Development Committee.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s representative supported the scheme, citing the buildings’ condition, investment, sustainable location, housing need and improvements to the conservation area.

What members debated

Members debated HMO concentration, parking, security, occupant welfare, bathroom access, gate management, landscaping and whether conditions could address their concerns.

“Councillor Jones noted that as rooms 1 and 16 did not have ensuite bathrooms, occupants should have their own personal fob to access their separate dedicated bathroom, which should be stipulated in condition 16. Councillor Jones also requested that details of boundary treatments and landscaping be requested in relation to the demolition of outbuildings under condition 9.”

“The Development Management Team Leader commented that condition 11, requirement for an HMO management plan, could cover the need for personal fobs for separate bathrooms for rooms 1 and 16, closure of security gate and presence of a manager on site with an informative to highlight that these matters need to be addressed by the HMO management plan, whereas the details of boundary treatment and landscaping could be added as a separate condition.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee rejected proposed additional conditions and then agreed a motion to refuse the application for HMO concentration and effects on existing residents.

“The updated recommendations, including personal fobs for bathrooms for rooms 1 and 16, a manager on site 24/7, closure of security gate when no vehicle parked on site, and a condition for details of boundary treatments and landscaping, were put to the meeting and were lost.”

“Councillor Kreidewolf proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of failing to meet Policy DM20 (iii) and the impact of the proposed development on existing residents in the area, and Councillor Jones added Policy DM12 (a), which required new developments to fit well with adjoining areas; this motion for refusal was put to the meeting and was agreed.”

Minutes