Controversial plans for alterations to a historic Stourbridge hotel have been thrown out by Dudley Council planners.

The owners of the Talbot Hotel on the High Street had applied for permission to add extensions and make alterations to the Grade II listed building.

The plan attracted 139 letters of objection while consultees also had concerns about the effect of the modifications on the building.

In their statement on the proposal, Historic England said: “Overall, it is considered that these external and internal alterations would result in a significant degree of incremental alteration and harm to the significance of the existing designated heritage asset, especially where the legibility of historic internal spaces would be compromised.”

The Society for The Protection of Ancient Buildings added: “Given the poor quality of the information provided and the high level of harm that the proposals would cause, this application should be withdrawn. 

“Should the applicant not be willing to do this, the application should be refused”. 

The council had been asked to rule on the addition of a two-story extension and a single storey extension to provide eight additional bedrooms plus a boiler room and a laundry along with internal alterations including the subdivision of a conference room at the hotel, which dates back to the late 1600s.

The council was also asked to provide consent for the modifications to a listed building.

The application also generated speculation the changes were paving the way for the building to become a house in multiple occupation (HMO).

In a report on the application, planning officers said: “A number of objections have been received through the consultation process that referred to the conversion of the hotel into a HMO, however, there is no evidence provided with this application to suggest that this is the case.

“It is to be recognised that any such change to the use of the hotel to a HMO would result in a formal change of use of the premises, and appropriate planning permission would be required accordingly.” 

Both applications were rejected on the grounds the changes would negatively affect the historic building and its surroundings, failed to provide justification for the alterations and failed to provide adequate parking.