A planning inspector has said proposals for a nine bed HMO in a listed Bradford building were “simply not an acceptable standard of living for anyone.”
Despite the developer saying the planned accommodation on Lumb Lane would be better for homeless people than living on the streets, the inspector said “people still deserve to be housed in a safe and pleasant environment.”
Earlier this year, a planning application to convert Grade II listed 18 Lumb Lane into a nine person House in Multiple Occupation was refused by Bradford Council, with officers saying not all habitable rooms would be served by windows, and others would have “limited access to natural light.”
Planners argued the bedsits would offer “poor living conditions for the future occupiers.”
Femina Housing subsequently lodged an appeal, urging a Government planning inspector to overturn this refusal.
They argue that the HMO would be used to house homeless people, adding: “The building is for the use of vulnerable and homeless people who have no hope going forward and are living rough on the streets, all they want is a roof over their head, a warm meal and an opportunity to try to get themselves back up on their feet again.
“These people do not want a lot and we need councils to support these types of application.”
But planning inspector R Bartlett has now dismissed the appeal, and questioned the claim that accommodation could be inferior because it was still better than rough sleeping.
They said although the building was suitable for a HMO, it did not have good enough facilities to house nine people.
The inspector’s decision says: “Whilst I appreciate that the appellant wants to help to get homeless people off the street, and considers that anything is better than that, these people still deserve to be housed in a safe and pleasant environment.
“A room without guaranteed natural light, ventilation or means of escape in the event of an emergency, and with poor access to basic facilities such as a toilet on the same floor, would do little to improve their mental health or wellbeing, and is simply not an acceptable standard of living for anyone.”
They also pointed out that some roof windows on the listed building appeared to be built without listed building consent, and these windows were essential to providing light to some of the HMO rooms.
Any enforcement action could require the removal of these windows – he argued.
