The owner of a property in Lichfield says plans to turn it into a house of multiple occupancy have been withdrawn after concerns were raised by local residents.
The proposals would have seen the three bedroom home at 133 Weston Road converted into a ten bedroom HMO.
An original scheme had sought planning permission for a 12 bedroom property, but was later amended.
Owner Chris Ball has now confirmed he has withdrawn the application after hearing the strength of feeling from residents.
“I have reviewed the comments and objections to my planning application for my property at 133 Weston Road with a great deal of interest.
“Obviously, I am aware of the unprecedented levels of objection to this proposal.
“The proposal was borne out of my personal circumstances and a desire to help with what I believed was a very moral use of a potentially large dwelling that would benefit from a development – it was not resulting from greed or exploitation on my behalf or that of the planning company as many people indicated.
“I am now very happy to announce that with respect to the wishes and views of the neighbourhood, I am withdrawing the application.
“It might be the case that I look at ways to improve the existing three bedroom dwelling. I hope that any future plans are not subject to the same problems.
“Sorry for any inconvenience caused to all parties involved.”
Chris Ball
Residents had branded the plans to create a HMO at the site as “ridiculous”, with one telling Lichfield Live it was “overdevelopment of the plot”.
Cllr Joanne Grange, independent representative for Chadsmead ward at Lichfield District Council, said she was happy to see the owner’s decision.
“I am pleased to hear the planning application has been withdrawn.
“While we can all recognise the need for a mix of accommodation in the district, a house of multiple occupancy of this scale was too much for the location and would have had a disproportionate impact on the quality of life for local residents.”
Cllr Joanne Grange, Lichfield District Council
The issue of HMO proposals has been in the headlines this week after a separate scheme on Chapel Lane was given the green light despite local opposition.
Wonderful news. Well done to the owner for listening. It’s a shame that the same cannot be said for the owner on Chapel Lane, and Lichfield’s useless planning officers and the planning committee.
How was it not out of greed attempting to turn it firstly into 12 bedroom hmo then reducing it to 10 from the current 3 bed status ? No wonder the locals objected!
Hmm residents of Weston Road a bit more feisty in overtly fighting this and making their views known shall we say? Plus a ward councillor supporting the residents. I just don’t get the Conservatives they could have reduced the other TMO to 6 and said we did what we could within the law. Instead they fail to turn up in numbers and let Labour call the shots. As a result they are not seen to be backing the residents.
This property is a perfectly extendable family home and that is what it should be.
As much as I appreciate the plans being withdrawn it’s hard to imagine how anyone could expect the local residents to stay quiet over such an ill thought out project?
As mentioned it’s a shame the owner of Chapel Lane wasn’t so respectful to local views ? I feel the ban on using the store is a good silent protest? well done to those who boycott the place.
Power to the People. Well done Joanna Grange for your support.
I watched the council meeting about Chapel Lane on youtube and appreciate the dilemma that Cllrs. found themselves in. The property already has 6 bedrooms and the owner could lawfully let those rooms to different people and the council would have no say about how many people. They were seeking approval for 7 bedrooms with the condition that they would be single room lettings. So at the risk of a dwelling possibly housing 12 people without planning approval or housing 7 people with planning approval is the reason why it was approved. They were caught between a rock and a hard place. That said, I don’t approve of HMOs per se and I agree that on such an important matter where votes matter all Cllrs. should be obliged to attend such meetings, otherwise you have to ask why be a councillor if you cannot be 100% committed and receive a not to be sniffed at remuneration.
Thank goodness for common sense but surely Mr Ball should have closed the application much sooner when all us residents rose up in anger. He hung on giving us all nightmares about such an antisocial and threatening development. It must surely be greed.