Cannock HMO plan refused after heated exchange
Developers have been accused of ‘flouting planning rules’ in a heated exchange over whether a Cannock house of multiple occupancy should be able to stay open.
Retrospective plans were submitted to Cannock Chase District Council for a nine-person HMO.
Located on Walsall Road in Bridgtown, above a restaurant, the HMO has been operating since 2022. The plans would convert the first floor of the property into six bedrooms, with two kitchens and a dining room.
A licence for the property to operate as a HMO has been issued, and no objections from statutory consultees, apart from the local parish council, were received by the district council. In their objection the parish council complained about inadequate living conditions, overdevelopment and approving the application could set a ‘dangerous precedent’.
In addition, seven letters of objection were received from local residents. Speaking at the planning committee meeting local MP Josh Newbury said he was speaking on behalf of a number of residents on North Street who contacted him over the plans.
He said: “As you’ve heard there have been concerns about issues associated with this accommodation above the restaurant in question for many years, indeed off and on for a decade.
“Residents have complained about issues such as fires being started close to the boundary of the property; people or residents urinating against the boundary walls; loud music being played outside until the early hours of the morning; rubbish as we’ve heard being left to overflow attracting vermin; also drunken disorderly behaviour and smoking cannabis.”
He said residents were concerned that approval of the plans would mean that the situation would get worse and that an additional strain on car parking, which is already an issue in the area, would become a problem.
The MP continued: “As with many retrospective planning applications, not all, if passed I believe this application would make a mockery of the whole planning system and this council. Quite frankly sometimes residents will forget to put in a planning application or forget to include a certain piece of information, that’s not the case in this respect.
“I think the people who own the site know exactly that they need planning permission to be able to do this and they’ve gone ahead and done it anyway, and they’ve done it over a number of different years, it’s just the latest iteration of it.
“Bridgtown is an urban area of course, but it is a small village community nonetheless and at the heart of planning is whether something proposed is appropriate in the context of the area that it’s cited in. This is not an appropriate use of a building like this for that many residents. Just because the owners have gone ahead and flouted planning rules already doesn’t mean they should be able to get away with it.”
Planning officers at the council recommended approval of the plans and stated that the historical issues on the site relate to 2015 and it would not be reasonable to expect new occupiers to act in the same manner and confirm no complaints have been received since 2022.
Councillor Steve Thornley disagreed with the recommendation. He said: “We as a council have a simple value to make – do we want high quality housing in towns, cities and villages or not. HMOs will provide a resource in my experience, a very substantial resource, sadly for needy people.
“We have an opportunity and have a right actually to set standards of what we expect in our town. They do come with problems, they do come with issues, not all, some are very well managed.”
A recent planning inspectorate appeal decision in Coventry allowed a six-bed HMO despite the inspector concluding the amenity space would create ‘a poor-quality living environment’ as it only had one shared kitchen and no dining space. The inspector concluded that due to the council not being able to demonstrate a five year housing supply was given greater weight than the lack of amenity space.
Due to this, planning officers told councillors if a decision to refuse the application was made then an application for cost could be made, if the decision was appealed. Currently Cannock Chase can only demonstrate a 1.88-year housing supply, which is similar to Coventry on 1.8 years supply.
Councillors at Cannock Chase District Council voted to refuse the application on the grounds that the proposals had insufficient amenity, that it would be detrimental to the occupants and it would be a detriment to the area. It is expected that the decision will be appealed.
