18-bedroom HMO conversion at 39A And 39B Lord Street, Grimsby

The site and surroundings

The site was a large two-storey building behind commercial properties, formerly used for religious meetings and recreation, in an area of homes and some businesses.

“Councillor Holland. SITE The proposal site is a large two storey building located on Lord Street in Grimsby. The property is positioned to the rear of two existing commercial properties with residential flats above. A covered access point sits between the two properties which allows for access to the host site which includes an open courtyard to the frontage.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Permission for two dwellings was approved in 2014 but not implemented, while a 2025 application seeking recognition of existing HMO use was refused.

“The application site is located within close proximity to Grimsby Town Centre and is considered to be a sustainable location. Policies 5, 22, 33, 34, 38 and 41 are considered to be relevant to the proposal subject to this application. Planning History Planning permission was approved in 2014 to change the use of the properties from religious meeting rooms and associated recreational facilities into two dwellings.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the location sustainable and found the effects on character, neighbours, future occupiers, highways, flooding and ecology acceptable with conditions.

“Having regard to the above it is not considered that the proposal would adversely harm the amenities of existing or future occupiers, and the development accords with Policy 5 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2013-2032 (Adopted 2018). Highways and Parking In respect of highways and parking considerations, the site is located within a highly sustainable location in close proximity to the Grimsby Town Centre.”

Officer report

What residents said

Objectors cited character, cumulative effects, noise, parking, waste, management, surveillance and antisocial behaviour; supporters cited housing need, growth and community benefits.

“Neighbour Representations 51 Lord Street, Grimsby 1 Weelsby Grove, Grimsby 5 Manor Avenue, Grimsby 21 Cotswold Drive, Waltham Object on the following grounds: - Impact on character of the area - Cumulative impacts - Noise and disturbance - Parking issues - Waste issues - Management and surveillance issues - Anti-social behaviour concerns The following support the proposal: Yarra Road, Cleethorpes 39A Lord Street, Grimsby 11 Monks Close, South Ruislip 6 Cotswold Close,…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillor Holland spoke against the application, saying it would provide overcrowded accommodation and prioritise developer returns over residents’ needs.

What members debated

Members debated over-intensification, possible numbers, room and kitchen facilities, parking, management, fire safety, community impact and the quality of future residents’ accommodation.

“Councillor Bright said that he had voted in favour and against houses of multiple occupancy depending on the circumstances. He said that this was an example of over intensification. Councillor Bright said that there could potentially be 36 people in those buildings which was not normal. He said that houses of multiple occupancy were also transient in nature. Councillor Bright said that as far as he was aware there hadn’t been any community impact assessment undertaken.”

“Councillor Bright said that the letters of support for the application were from people outside of the area and he didn’t think that should be given any weight. He said that there was no management plan about how the property would be managed. Councillor Bright said that committee members hadn’t heard anything from the applicant and there was nothing in the conditions limiting occupancy in the rooms.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members voted unanimously to refuse the application.

“RESOLVED - That the application be refused.”

“(Note - the committee voted unanimously for the application to be refused.)”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because the development was considered over-intensive, likely to create noise and disturbance, and likely to provide a poor living environment.

“Councillor Kaczmarek and Councillor Humphrey agreed that the reasons for the proposal to refuse the application was that it was an over intensive development which would create noise and disturbance to the amenity of neighbouring properties and that it would also result in a poor living environment for future occupiers.”

Minutes