Normanton HMO plan rejected by council after 1,000 objections

Plans for a shared house next to a pub have been rejected after more than 1,000 people objected amid fears it would fuel anti-social behaviour.

Developers wanted to convert the former office building next to the Black Swan on Castleford Road, Normanton, into a house of multiple occupancy (HMO) for six people.

However, opponents said Normanton had become “saturated” with HMOs, leading to a “change in the character of the neighbourhood”.

Applicant Sam Sharma argued the accommodation was needed but Wakefield Council turned down the proposal, describing it as “oppressive”.

A report said there were currently 21 registered HMOs in the area, “with several more unregistered”.

One resident said: “Crime levels have drastically increased and have caused a real uneasiness in the community.

“Many residents dare not walk around with confidence as they used to and certainly not by some of the HMOs.”

Another opponent said: “We have already high levels of anti-social behaviour from many already living in HMOs.”

A third objection stated: “I am a 66-year-old independent woman who is afraid to walk the streets of Normanton – and not only on a night.”

Sam Sharma’s planning statement said the property would provide “high-end professional accommodation”.

It said: “It will primarily attract young professionals, especially those new to the area, who are looking to settle in the vicinity, and also for those working on short-term contracts at the vast developments along the M62 corridor.

The applicant accepted there was already a high concentration of HMOs in Normanton but added:  “We believe this highlights the need for this type of accommodation.”

The building lies just outside a conservation area and has previously been used as offices, commercial premises and a pub.

Although not listed with Historic England, it is considered a “building of local interest” along with the pub next door, according to a heritage statement.

Rejecting the application, a planning officer said occupants of four of the rooms would be faced with an “oppressive juxtaposition with the access and site boundary”.

There would also be “a lack of adequate access to natural light and ventilation” and the development “would result in a poor standard of amenity to future occupants”.