Willenhall councillor 'loses faith' after Frustration after an HMO plan is approved in seconds

A councillor has spoken out after plans for an HMO were approved in seconds with no discussion

By Local Democracy Reporter Rachel Alexander
Published

A Willenhall South councillor has ‘lost faith’ in the planning committee after a House of Multiple Occupation application was approved with no discussion.

A change of use application was submitted by Tristar Homes Ltd to turn 75 New Road, a locally listed building just opposite Willenhall’s Lock Museum, into an eight-bedroom HMO.

It was brought before the planning committee on June 19 after a petition launched against the plans was submitted to Walsall Council.

Just 16 seconds after the item was raised at the meeting, it was approved.

No details of the proposal were displayed to committee members and there was no mention of the petition.

Permission for use for LDR partners
Permission for use for LDR partners

In response to the decision, Councillor Simran Cheema said she is ‘frustrated and saddened’.

She said: “I am concerned about the lack of discussion on this application at the planning committee and lack of consideration for reasons of objection.

“I don’t have much faith in the planning committee in decision making.

“This HMO will be situated next door to an independent school and a significant number of residents I have spoken to raised concerns and signed a petition against the proposals.

“The building itself is locally listed and I have a number of concerns in relation to over concentration of HMOs in the area, potential antisocial behaviour issues, waste management, parking and overdevelopment of the site.”

Now plans are approved, the applicant has permission to go ahead with the proposals which include the demolition of the existing outbuilding and the construction of a new rear extension.

In 2020, a previous application to convert the property into five apartments was refused by Walsall Council.

It was refused as the council said there was insufficient amenity space and the design would have had too great of an impact on the non-designated heritage asset.