Dudley Council planners have rejected controversial plans for an 18-bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO) in Brierley Hill. The proposal, which aimed to convert a vacant office building on land between High Street and Albion Street, was turned down because the design failed to respect the character of the existing Victorian-era buildings.
Application Details and Rejection
The application sought to convert three Victorian-era buildings into an HMO, adding extensions for office space, an amenity block, and a communal room. However, council planning officers concluded that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area, outweighing any benefits from increased housing supply.
A report from planning officers stated: "Whilst weight must be attached to the provision of residential development, which will help boost housing supply, it is determined that the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area which significantly outweighs the benefits of the scheme in this instance."
Previous Rejection and Objections
A previous application for a similar development was rejected in August 2025. Although the new design differed, the council's Historic Environment Team still objected. Officers noted that retaining the northern building with its distinctive arched windows and historic brickwork required internal floor level changes, resulting in windows being cut across internally and modern windows placed above original arched windows. They also highlighted plans to "block up" original windows to address amenity concerns, describing the outcome as "visually discordant and architecturally incongruous."
The decision was welcomed by campaigners, including ward councillors Adam Davies and Wayne Little, who organised a 283-name petition raising concerns about unsympathetic design, failure to deliver high-quality housing, potential crime increases, and loss of privacy for existing residents.
Applicant's Response
A statement supporting the application argued that the scheme had been refined over months to fit local character and site constraints, creating a suitable residential plan. It emphasised the need for housing and revitalising the disused site, stating: "The need for housing and revitalizing the disused site justifies residential redevelopment, enabling the site's regeneration and improvement to the local area."
Despite these arguments, planners upheld the rejection, prioritising the preservation of the conservation area's character.
