Developers slam HMO decision
Developers have slammed the council after planners rejected their application to turn a dilapidated family home in Wellington into a House in Multiple Occupation for 12 people.
An appeal has been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate with the applicants and their agent saying that Telford & Wrekin Council’s decision “cannot be supported by evidence or any objective analysis.”
Planners had ruled that the proposal for 93, Watling Street, would mean a “significant intensification of use and an overdevelopment of the site.”
It had drawn objections from Wellington Town Council and Councillor Lee Carter, the leader of the borough council, a ward councillor in the town.
Councillor Carter had said: “The proposed development is overdevelopment of the area which is already home to a 90 bed hotel and a large apartment block adjacent.
“It has potential to compromise the quality of life for the local community and in addition put further strain on local services.”
Planning agent Philip Staddon of PJS Development Solutions Ltd has told the inspectorate that the council “appears to have departed from evidence-based decision making, to refuse the proposal for three arbitrary and unevidenced reasons that cannot be substantiated.”
The appellants Mr & Mrs Kudhail say that the council has “acted unreasonably, which should give rise to a substantive and full award of costs.” If the inspector agrees, the two sides will have to agree to a figure.
They say that the proposal “is not over intensive; it will not cause harm to the amenity of the area; it will not create parking problems; protected species will not be affected; and it “complies with all relevant” local and national plan policies.
They added that the appellants will “will seek to demonstrate that the council has acted unreasonably, seemingly following a politician’s steer, rather than correctly following planning policies and evidence.”
The inspector has given the council the opportunity to respond to the costs appeal, and a bid to overturn the decision, at some time after August 6, 2025.
In its decision, the council said it considers the “scale and use would represent an overdevelopment of the site and would fail to be reflective of the character of the area or enhance the quality of the built environment.”
Planners had concluded that the change of use would “result in an unacceptable level of intensification and have a detrimental impact of the amenity of the surrounding area.”
The inspector is set to decide the issue based on written representations.
