Residents of Peet Avenue breathed a collective sigh of relief after the appeal to overturn the rejection of a student House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) was dismissed.

The owner of 30 Peet Avenue had submitted a planning application to convert the former family home into a five bed student HMO.

Knowsley Ward's Cllr Gareth Dowling called the application in to be heard before the Borough Council's Planning Committee in July 2018.

Huge numbers of concerned neighbours and residents attended the meeting to show their objection, which Cllr Nikki Hennessy spoke against as the ward councillor.

Following deliberation by the committee, fellow Knowsley Ward Councillor Adam Yates moved for the application to be rejected, against the officers' recommendations, on the grounds of loss of amenity, which was supported by the majority of the committee.

Subsequently, the applicant appealed to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to overrule the decision.

Knowsley Ward Councillor Nikki Hennessy said: "I am absolutely delighted for the residents of Peet Avenue and Ryburn Road that the Planning Inspectorate has sided with ward councillors and residents and refused to allow this student HMO go ahead.

"We have worked hard with the residents to put forward the strongest possible objections. There were huge emotions about this application with some in tears and fearful of the change in their living amenity.

"Everyone needs to live somewhere, but we need to be sensible and sensitive to different areas and the end of this quiet cul-de-sac was most definitely not the place for this HMO.

“As a council, we have worked hard to reduce the number of HMOs in Ormskirk and encourage purpose built accommodation, particularly on campus, despite the national regulations often working in favour of developers. This is a great result for residents across Ormskirk."

The Planning Inspectorate further dismissed the applicant's appeal for costs, stating that: "I agree with Council Members that there were sufficient grounds for refusing planning permission on grounds relating to the living conditions and amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. It therefore follows that I am satisfied that the Council has shown that it was able to substantiate its reason for refusal.

"Consequently, I cannot agree that the Council has acted unreasonably in this case and do not consider that the Applicant incurred unnecessary or wasted expense."

https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov...caseid=3210495

Appeal Decision: Conclusion 15. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations, which include the National Planning Policy Framework, indicate otherwise. I have found that the proposed development would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. As such it is contrary to Policy GN3 of the Local Plan and no material considerations have been identified that would indicate making a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.