Sandwell Council Rejects 14-Bed HMO Plan Above Smethwick Pharmacy
Sandwell Council has refused a planning application to create a 14-bed house of multiple occupation (HMO) above Ashworth Pharmacy on Queens Road in Smethwick. The decision came after the council received a significant 91 objections from local residents, highlighting widespread community opposition to the proposed development.
Multiple Grounds for Rejection
The council's planning department cited several critical issues with the application. Noise and disturbance concerns were paramount, with planners warning that the HMO would negatively impact neighboring properties. Additionally, the proposed design failed to provide adequate natural light, sufficient internal living space, proper garden areas, and appropriate bin storage facilities.
The planned two-storey rear and side extension around the existing pharmacy was described by council planners as "unduly prominent, out of keeping and incongruous" with the surrounding area. They further noted that the extension would result in unacceptable loss of light and privacy for adjacent properties.
Parking Deficiency and Highway Concerns
Highways officers raised serious objections regarding parking provisions. They determined that a 14-bed HMO would require at least seven dedicated parking spaces. The application provided no parking facilities whatsoever, a situation the council deemed completely unacceptable for the proposed development scale.
Development Details and Applicant's Position
The plans, submitted earlier this year, involved demolishing the neighboring My Cards and More gift shop to allow for pharmacy expansion while maintaining business operations. The HMO would have occupied two floors above the retail space.
Pranav Gupta, who took over the pharmacy in 2021 following previous owners' retirement, included a statement with his application defending the proposal. He argued the extension was designed to be "in keeping with the scale and character of surrounding properties" and that the two-storey form aligned with typical local developments.
Mr. Gupta's statement emphasized the location's sustainability, noting excellent public transport access that would reduce car dependency. He also pointed to proximity to local parks and community facilities as compensating for the lack of private garden space, while asserting the development would retain and enhance a valuable local business while addressing housing needs.
Despite these arguments, Sandwell Council found the proposal fundamentally flawed on multiple planning grounds, leading to its definitive rejection following substantial community opposition.
