HMO thrown out on appeal despite new plans

A plan for a house of multiple occupation has been thrown out on appeal for not providing adequate accommodation.

Dudley Council planners rejected a retrospective application for the five bedroom HMO at Hayes Hill Villa, The Hayes in Lye back in November 2024.

The applicant appealed to the government’s Planning Inspectorate claiming the property was converted with attention to space and facilities required for multiple occupation.

In a statement supporting the appeal, Zaigham Husain Quadri said: “Each bedroom meets the minimum size standards set out in national guidance, with appropriate provision for communal living, cooking and sanitary facilities.

“The conversion was carried out to comply with HMO licensing standards under the Housing Act 2004, ensuring habitability and tenant welfare.”

The planning Inspectorate was unimpressed with amended plans submitted with the appeal and only considered the plans submitted with the original application.

The inspectorate concluded: “The appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and it is important that what is considered by the inspector is essentially what was considered by the council.

“The proposed development would not provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers with regard to internal ceiling heights, layout, sunlight, daylight, privacy, noise and disturbance.” 

Parking was also an issue, a report from council officers on the application said: “Due to the potential increase in residents with access to vehicles and no on-site parking provision, it is considered that the development has the potential to create additional on-street parking in the locality. 

“Given that the serving A458 does not benefit from any on-street parking restrictions, this is likely to result in the displacement of parking onto one of the key routes within the borough, the principle of which would not be acceptable on highway safety grounds.”

The applicant said nearby landowners could be approached to provide off-road parking and the property could accommodate seasonal workers at a nearby site who do not drive.

The inspectorate concluded the appeal was not for worker accommodation and there was no guarantee the property would be occupied by ‘such workers’.

The inspectorate also supported the conclusion of Dudley’s officers that the property would harm highways safety.