Controversial Oswestry HMO plan is approved after councillors told their reasons for opposing it might not be defensible

In a dramatic planning committee meeting on Tuesday (December 9), the chair used his casting vote to grant the scheme at 23 Cross Street permission.

The proposal – put forward by Jassy Sidhu of Your Property Ventures – will see the building, which currently houses a vape shop on the ground floor, converted into a six-bed HMO with communal living areas.

Despite seven councillors voting to reject the scheme last month and only one voting in support, the application was sent back to the committee to consider.

This was because officers deemed the reasons given for refusing it “not defensible” and potentially putting the council at risk of paying out compensation or damages if challenged.

The only person who was in support of the proposal last month was Councillor Julian Dean, the chair of the committee. However, in a dramatic swing, it was a split vote this time around, with the Green and Progressive Independents councillor for Porthill using his casting vote to approve it.

Councillors Mark Owen (Lib Dems, Oswestry South East) and Ed Potter (Conservative, Loton) changed their minds from last time, while Councillor Rosemary Dartnall (Labour, Column and Sutton) – who previously abstained – also voted in favour.

Charlotte Morrison, planning and development services manager at Shropshire Council, explained why the previous reasons given for refusal would not be defensible at an appeal, and could prove costly to the local authority.

In response to claims of a lack of demonstrable demand for HMO accommodation, Ms Morrison said there was no evidence base for that and called it “heresay”.

The second reason given for refusal was inadequate waste management, but the waste management officer was happy with the arrangements proposed, said Ms Morrison. She added that the council would also struggle to defend itself on grounds of overintensification and poor living standards, including lack of private amenity space.

“There are lots of buildings on top of shops whereby they don’t have private amenity space,” said Ms Morrison.

“It’s a life choice.”

Ms Morrison added that the proposal complies with living standards, and the council has to ensure it’s sticking to planning rather than licensing issues.

Claiming that the proposal would harm the heritage of the area could also be difficult to stand up, said Ms Morrison.

Councillor Carl Rowley, who proposed that the committee reject the application at the November 18 meeting, said he had now whittled down the number of reasons to reject to three – with only the waste management being on Ms Morrison’s list.

“The other issues I had, which I should have brought up at the time, is that it is in conjunction with the Smithfield Hotel [HMO proposal],” said Councillor Rowley, who represents St Martins for Reform UK.

“There is no parking whatsoever. It sits on a pedestrian area, the only parking available is public parking.”

In response, Ms Morrison said that introducing new reasons to oppose the scheme now is “100 per cent a way of getting costs awarded against us.”

Councillor Potter therefore asked if the committee could go with the overintensification justification.

“Or are we going to have another vote on it?” he asked. “I don’t know.”

'I don't think we have supportable objections'

Councillor Greg Ebbs (Lib Dems, Whitchurch South) said that, although it wasn’t a reason to reject brought up by Councillor Rowley at the November 18 meeting, he mentioned the impact the scheme would have on the adjacent business and asked if that could be a reason to reject it.

However, Councillor Dartnall proposed that the committee accept the application.

“I don’t think we have supportable objections – that’s been made clear by the officer,” she said.

Her proposal was seconded by Councillor Potter.

However, before it went to a vote, Councillor Brian Evans (Reform UK, St Martins) said he would vote against it.

“The impact on Star Passage cannot be underestimated between Cross Street and Bailey Street,” he said.

“I was down there just the other day. There are bins there. It’s not a very clear passage. That is another thing we should put on the shopping list [of reasons to reject].

Councillor Andy Davis (Lib Dems, St Oswald) also highlighted one of the reasons he voted to reject it last time.

“We were very concerned about the access of the fire safety,” he said.

“We are actually going to approve something that could endanger the safety and lives of residents who will be living in this building.

“There is only one access and egress in the building. That is really concerning.

“There is insufficient private amenity space, which you’ve identified, although in town centres you said it’s not an issue. In many cases, they may be flats and they may have their own personal living spaces.

“We’re not discussing that here, it’s a totally different case.”

Members were reminded that anything related to fire safety is covered in the building regulations, and they shouldn’t be crossing over into other parts of regulation. The only other member to vote against the scheme was Councillor Gary Groves (Lib Dems, Wem).

Councillor Adam Fejfer (Lib Dems, Monkmoor) and Councillor Ebbs abstained.

It therefore meant that four members were in favour of approving the scheme, and four against. When there is a split vote, the chair has the final say, meaning that it it was approved.