Planning permission has been rejected for a converted family home close to the centre of Horwich to be used as a six-bed house in multiple occupation (HMO).
Manchester-based Together Homes Ltd sought approval for the change of use of the house on Brownlow Road. The plans drew a wave of objections, with the council receiving 71 submissions opposed to the HMO use.
Objections to the HMO plans
Objections included the overdevelopment of the modest terraced house, insufficient internal and external amenity space, and harm to the family-orientated character of Brownlow Road. Some claimed the development would mean the loss of family housing and alter the settled residential character of the area.
Objections were also received from Horwich Town Council, local councillors and MP Phil Brickell. He said the proposed change of use was likely to result in 'increased levels of noise and general disturbance given the potential for six unrelated occupants'.
Applicant's planning statement
A planning statement in support of the change stated the house would 'provide high-quality shared accommodation'. The statement said: "Planning permission is sought for the change of use of the existing dwelling house to provide six individual letting bedrooms.
"Each bedroom will be occupied by a single resident and benefits from a private en-suite shower room, natural daylight and natural ventilation."
The property forms part of a traditional Victorian mid-terrace. The planning statement said recent refurbishment had taken place which did not require planning permission. It said: "These improvements have transformed the property into modern residential accommodation suitable for long-term occupation.
"This application seeks planning permission for the proposed use of the building following completion of those refurbishment works."
Reasons for refusal
This week planners at Bolton council turned down the change of use. A decision notice gave a reason as 'limited usable indoor and outdoor communal space, poor outlook and loss of privacy for the occupants of bedroom 2 and 3, would not provide a high standard of amenity for future occupants'.
A second reason given was 'insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that on-street car parking capacity is available to support the HMO use'.
