Object

Representation ID: 103

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Brierley Hill Community Forum

Clause a) of policy DLP 17.
This does not seem logical, surely any conversion of family housing to a House of multiple occupation leads to a loss of family housing and surely there's a shortage of family housing across the borough so on this basis no conversions to HMOs should be permitted?
Clause d) on car parking, this is too vague in terms of the level of car parking required and we should be looking for a clear statement of the ratio of car parking spaces compared with the number of occupants in each property.
Paragraph 8.51 is confusing. On the one hand it says that planning permission is not normally required for an HMO but then it refers to the Article 4 direction, so which is it, is planning permission required or not?
Paragraph 8.56 again the implication of this paragraph is that conversion to HMO from a family home will never be permitted because clearly any such conversion reduces the number of family homes.
If the council is saying that it will not allow conversion of family homes to HMO's then it needs to make this a bit clearer but certainly this seems to be the implication in this section.

Comment

Representation ID: 221

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Dennis R Whittaker

In general I do not support HMOs because they can be a source of trouble. They should be tightly controlled and only allowed if there is a genuine need.
I welcome the below statement in DLP17, paragraph 1.d.
"d. Provision for off- and on-street car and cycle parking is sufficient and appropriately incorporated and would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area by way of increased on-street parking, impaired highway safety or impeding proper access to the area."
There has been an assumption that people in HMOs do not have Cars but, in the real world, some do and proper proper provision must be included in any Planning Applications.