Six-bedroom HMO at 23 Cross Street, Oswestry

What was proposed

The application proposed converting the vacant upper three floors into a six-bedroom, six-person house in multiple occupation.

“Proposal: Proposed Conversion of upper floors into 6-Bedroom (6 persons) House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (Use Class C4)”

“THE PROPOSAL 1.1 Proposed conversion of vacant upper three floors into 6-Bedroom (6 persons) House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (Planning Use Class C 4)”

Officer report

The site

The four-storey terraced building is in Oswestry town centre’s conservation area and primary shopping area, with retail and commercial businesses nearby.

“Cross Street is a four storey terraced building located in Oswestry Town Centre, the building is considered a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) and falls within…”

“The site falls within the town’s Development Boundary, Conservation Area, Town Centre and Primary Shopping Area.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A previous application for the same six-bedroom HMO was refused in July 2025, alongside earlier applications for the building and a gas installation.

“OS/97/09821/ADV Provision of illuminated fascia and projecting signs GRANT 10th July 1997 • 14/02561/FUL Change of use from A1 to A3 (cafes/restaurants) GRANT 6th August 2014 • 14/02562/ADV Erect and Display one non-illuminated fascia sign GRANT 5th August 2014 • OS/95/8984/FUL New shop front and internal shop fitting GRANT 28th March 1995 • 25/01940/FUL Conversion of upper floors into 6-Bedroom HMO Accommodation REFUSE 30th July 2025 • HEPRE/25/00136 Gas supply…”

Officer report

Main concerns assessed

The assessment considered scale, living standards, heritage, amenity, waste, access, parking and highway safety, including the lack of private outdoor space.

“Sufficient information has been submitted regarding the proposed waste management arrangements for the site. These provisions are considered adequate to ensure that the development would not result in harm to the amenity of future occupants or neighbouring occupiers. As such, the proposal is not considered to conflict with Core Strategy Policies CS6 and CS19, which seek to secure sustainable development and protect residential amenity.”

“Officers acknowledge that the introduction of additional residential accommodation may result in an increased demand for roadside parking within the locality. However, given the town centre location of the site, where parking restrictions are in place, alongside the availability of nearby public parking facilities within walking distance and access to sustainable modes of transport, it is considered that the modest increase of six occupants would not result in an…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Most consultees raised no objection, while the Town Council objected over intensification, amenity, waste, parking, access, fire safety, heritage and business impacts.

“The Town Council have previously identified that applications such as this and others will create additional pressures on town centre parking (streets and public car parks). This needs strategic review as development is happening on a piecemeal basis with infrastructure requirements not considered. Town Centre car parks are not intended for residential parking.”

“Objections raised x 5 • Impact to character of the surrounding Conservation Area • Inadequate supporting HIA • Inadequate means of residential amenity • Inadequate waste storage arrangements • Town centre vitality and commercial impacts • Missed opportunity to explore more suitable uses, such as office space, creative enterprises, or high-quality residential units. • Inadequate parking • Unsafe means of access, noncompliant with fire safety standards…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An adjacent business owner spoke against the proposal, and a statement from the Town Council’s clerk was read against it.

Members’ debate

Members remained concerned about over intensification, the adjoining business, the conservation area and parking, but considered refusal reasons difficult to defend.

“The Area Planning Manager outlined each of the reasons for refusal that had been agreed at the previous meeting and advised the committee why each reason would not be defensible if challenged. During the ensuing debate Members concerns relating to over intensification, the impact on the adjoining business and the impact on the conservation area remained of concern.”

“Having considered the submitted plans and listened to the comments made by all of the speakers and the advice of the Planning Services Manager, whilst the committee still held the concerns regarding over intensification, parking and the impact on the adjoining business, the majority members supported the scheme and agreed there were not sufficient reasons to support a refusal if challenged at an appeal.”

Minutes