Oswestry HMO plan thrown out on appeal amid concerns over living conditions
An appeal over plans for a 14-bed house of multiple occupancy in Oswestry has been thrown out.
The planning inspector appointed to hear the appeal over the proposed conversion of Oswald House, at 13-17 Oswald Road, said the small garden space would not provide suitable living conditions for future tenants.
The scheme was rejected unanimously by Shropshire Council’s northern planning committee last December, despite planning officers recommending that it be approved.
If permission had been granted, the 14-bed property would have been created across the first, second and third floors, with the two commercial units on the ground floor to be converted into self-contained flats.
One of the flats would have its own private garden, while residents of the remainder of the building would share an outdoor area of around 91 square metres.
A decision notice from the Planning Inspectorate says councillors were right to refuse permission.
It says: “The proposal’s shared outdoor amenity space would be of limited size.
“Furthermore, due to the positioning of the proposed cycle storage, waste stations and the enclosed garden area for flat one, this would result in the shared area being an awkwardly shaped space that would limit its usability.
“Therefore, its use as a shared space would feel constrained, reducing unacceptably its quality and level of practical use.
“Similarly, the enclosed garden space for flat one would be small.
“I find that these spaces would not be large enough to provide sufficient space for the needs of future occupiers, such as clothes drying or enjoying garden activities and relaxation with outdoor seating.
“Consequently, the proposal would not provide adequate living conditions for future occupants, having regard to the amount of outdoor amenity space.
“I acknowledge that there are recreational spaces within a reasonable walking distance of the appeal site.
“However, as the recreational spaces are public spaces they would be shared with non-residents and are therefore not a private space.”
Councillors had also cited road safety as a second reason for refusal, saying the inclusion of just five parking spaces for the whole building would lead to more on-street parking which could prove hazardous.
However the inspector disagreed, saying the building was within walking and cycling distance of local services, with public transport links and adequate public parking nearby.
The decision notice also refers to other concerns raised by members of the public who objected to the application, including a potential increase in anti-social behaviour, drug-taking and “the type of people who would occupy the premises”.
But it adds: “Whilst I accept that these matters are of great importance to local residents, these are concerns which are either non-planning matters or are controlled through other separate legislation and bodies such as licensing, environmental health, and the police.”
