Inspector backs HMO proposal despite local objections

Alec Doyle, Local Democracy Reporter

Planning inspectors have overturned a decision by local councillors to refuse permission for a HMO.

The application by developer Natalie Ware to turn a three-bed family terrace on Rhosddu Road, Wrexham into a four bed house of multiple occupation by creating a downstairs bedroom was rejected in October.

Wrexham County Borough Council’s Planning Committee ruled there was insufficient outdoor amenity for bin storage, clothes drying and cycle storage and that the development was likely to increase demand for on-street parking to the detriment of highway safety.

The authority’s reasons for refusal were echoed by Rhosddu Community Council, which formally objected to the proposal.

But an appeal lodged by Mrs Ware with Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW) has reversed that decision – allowing the HMO plan to go ahead.

PEDW inspector Nia Jones refused to award costs to Mrs Ware however, affirming that while she disagreed with the council’s decision, the authority was not unreasonable in the way that decision was reached.

“Unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has
not been demonstrated and that a full award of costs is not justified,” said Ms Jones.

PEDW received submissions from a number of parties including nearby Salon One20 owner Silvana Grosvenor.

She told Ms Jones: “The refusal of the original application was correct. The proposed use is incompatible with the established commercial nature of our site.

“The increased density will lead to noise and general disturbance that are ill-suited to a professional business environment that has existed peacefully
for 25 years.

“The proposed development threatens the continued viability and harmony of this long-standing workspace. Today again a complaint has been registered with regards fly tipping – rats visible and the amount of household rubbish placed at the side of our building.”

Another opponent of the scheme – resident Kay Owen – said that there was already a concentration of HMOs in the area.

“I have objected to this HMO on the grounds that we are already surrounded by HMOs,” she submitted to the appeal. “Another house like this will only add to the problems we’re facing.”

Not a valid reason

But Ms Jones said the concerns did not amount to a valid reason for refusal.

“I have taken into account local concerns about fly tipping and vermin,” she said. “However, the council accepts – and I saw during my site visit – that the available outdoor space could accommodate the required amount of refuse storage, cycle parking and drying areas to serve the intended development.

“The council maintains concerns regarding the availability of outdoor space to serve the proposal, asserting that once these measures were laid out, the remaining outdoor space would not be of sufficient size to provide adequate usable amenity space for the occupants.

“In its current residential use as a three-bedroom dwelling, the appeal building could be occupied by a greater number of residents than the four tenants intended.

“Having taken all matters into account, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.”

Conditions imposed by the inspector include no more than four tenants occupying the property and the installation of all on-site cycle and bin storage facilities and biodiversity mitigations before any tenant occupies the property.