12 one-bedroom HMOs at 116-118 Lower Lichfield Street, Willenhall

What was proposed

The application sought 12 one-bedroom HMOs in the upper floors and rear ground floor of existing shops, with a demolished rear building, new door and retrospective shop fronts.

“25/0755 Site location: 116-118, LOWER LICHFIELD STREET, WILLENHALL, WV13 1PU Application proposal: Full planning application for a proposed conversion of ground floor rear of existing shops and first and second floors (planning use Class E) into 12 x 1 bed HMO (planning use Class Sui Generis), demolition of single storey rear storage building and new door in existing wall from Upper Lichfield Street plus retrospective permission for new shop fronts.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a Victorian three-storey corner property in Willenhall District Centre, within the conservation area and near locally listed and listed buildings.

“The application site comprises a Victorian three storey, red-brick corner property situated at the junction of Lower and Upper Lichfield Street. It is formed from 3 commercial units, no's 116, 117 and 118 Lower Lichfield Street. The building has a solid rectangular form with a chamfered corner, allowing it to follow the curve of the intersection. The roof is pitched and covered with dark tiles, with several brick chimney stacks rising from the top.”

“The site is within Willenhall District Centre. It falls within the Willenhall Conservation Area and is within the setting of several Locally Listed buildings one Grade II Listed building. It is in a high development coal risk area and in Flood Zone 1.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and enforcement

Earlier permissions covered flats and a rear outbuilding, while enforcement action over shop-front removal and internal works was paused pending this application.

“Enforcement investigations • E25/0517 – work to remove shop frontage without planning permission, internal works also begun – enforcement action on hold pending outcome of this planning application which considers the impacts of the amendments to the shop frontage.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Consultees raised issues about kitchens, ventilation, noise, contamination and biodiversity, while eight objections cited HMO oversaturation, crime, safeguarding, parking and waste.

“Public Health Objection on the grounds of no BNG assessment; lack of detail about ventilation for bathrooms; lack of information regarding noise insulation between the commercial and residential uses and potential traffic impacts to be considered by the Local Highway Authority.”

“Objection(s) 8 comments received objecting to proposal for the following reasons: • Oversaturation of HMOs in Willenhall • Noise generation not in keeping with the area • Potentially dangerous people living in the HMO • Risks of crime • Exacerbate existing problems of crime, antisocial behaviour and domestic rubbish in the streets • Impacts on neighbouring dance academy – privacy and safeguarding concerns due to direct lines of view into the dance studio space where children…”

Officer report

Who spoke

One speaker supported the proposal as accommodation for vulnerable residents needing limited support, while a councillor opposed it over concentration, safety, safeguarding, noise and parking.

Members’ debate

Members discussed safeguarding, obscure windows, parking, local businesses, overcrowding and whether proposed refusal reasons could be defended on appeal.

“The Committee moved to debate. Some Members acknowledged concerns raised by local businesses but noted that they could not be relied upon as planning grounds for refusal as presumptions could not be made about the future residents of the HMO and relying on such reasoning could leave the council at risk of an appeal.”

“The Interim Head of Planning and Building Control advised the committee that in his view, reasons for refusal regarding the overconcentration of HMOs, the effect on the character of the area, and that the proposal did not support the purpose of creating a mixed and balanced communities, could be defendable should a decision to refuse planning permission be appealed.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A motion to approve was lost, then an amended motion to refuse was passed by five votes to two, with no abstentions.

“On being put to the vote, the motion was declared lost (2 For, 5 Against, 1 Abstention).”

“An amended motion was moved by Councillor Tapper and seconded by Councillor Sutton and upon being put to the vote it was;”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

Permission was refused because the development was considered an oversaturation of HMOs, would imbalance community cohesion, affect area character and conflict with mixed, balanced communities.

“That Planning Committee refuse permission for application 25/0755 contrary to the Officers’ recommendation on the grounds that the development; Represented an oversaturation in the area and an imbalance in community cohesion. Represented an overconcentration of HMOs which would affect the character of the surrounding area and conflicted with the purpose of creating mixed and balanced communities.”

Minutes