Residents share views on HMO plan for Cross Street

Your Property Ventures wants to convert 23 Cross Street, which was most recently the former home of Time Invaders, into a six-bed house of multiple occupation.

The proposal would see two floors of the four-storey building converted into a space with six bedrooms and communal living areas.

Shropshire Council previously rejected the scheme, saying it represented an over-intensification of the site which, officers said, would result in a harmful impact on the amenity of future residents.

They criticised poor layout/access arrangements, inadequate internal living accommodation and facilities, insufficient outside private amenity space,  and inadequate waste/refuse management.

But within days of receiving the refusal, Your Property Ventures resubmitted the proposal.

In a planning statement, Joe Salt, of Creative Planning, said that the clarification of the maximum occupancy (six people) and provision of a laundry room addresses the council’s concerns regarding over-intensification, poor layout, and inadequate internal living accommodation and facilities.

A waste management plan also accompanied the application, in which Mr Salt addressed previous concerns raised.

“A practical and consistent approach should be taken to the assessment of the provision of external amenity space within a town-centre location and the access to the site,” said Mr Salt.

“With consideration to recently approved nearby residential conversions, no external amenity space is required, and the access via an existing external staircase is acceptable.

“We ask the council to take a consistent approach when assessing these matters. If any perceived harm arises from these matters, they would need to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of granting permission, as the tilted balance is in play.

“The proposal therefore complies with all local and national planning policies and planning permission should be granted.”

The consultation period for comments to be made has now ended, with three people making comments against the scheme.

“There is no parking provision for this development, and the statement that it is not necessary has no reasonable foundation,” said one.

“The circumstances of the occupiers are unknown, and the only rational assumption is that their transport needs will follow the general trends of the area. Furthermore, this proposal cannot be considered in isolation; there are currently similar proposals pending approval for 40 bedrooms in total, which would require an additional 34 parking spaces.”

However, another has claimed that the “anti-asylum/illegal immigrant brigade” are voicing “unfounded statements”.

“It has become evident that the overwhelming sentiment is not about HMOs but who will they be housing," she said. "HMOs it appears are acceptable for ‘locals’ – but not for anyone else.

“Although I have to say, sometimes I wonder if the majority have any understanding of what an HMO is.

“I do not object to old buildings being used for HMOs provided they meet planning regulations. I don’t have a view point on possible tenants – as this is a planning application not a witch hunt.”