Pontefract town centre HMO plans rejected after more than 300 objections to proposals to convert Newgate House

Wakefield Council said the proposed house of multiple occupancy (HMO) at Newgate House would have a “detrimental impact” on people living near to the property.

Officers also said the “over-intensive use” of the building would “not provide a high standard of amenity” for future residents.

The derelict building, which lies within a conservation area, was constructed around 1930 as a labour exchange and was most recently used as offices for a legal firm.

Documents submitted to the council said the building had been a target for vandalism and anti-social behaviour since becoming vacant.

A statement submitted on behalf of the applicant said: “The owner plans to invest up to half a million pounds to form the accommodation which will be managed by a company specialising in this form of development.

“The tenants will be strictly vetted and we envisage the majority to be professionals employed locally on a contract basis requiring short-term accommodation.

“The site is considered ideal in its location, with good local rail and bus links to major towns and cities.”

The statement also said the premises would be managed by on-site staff who would supervise security and provide “general concierge style facilities for tenants”.

It added: “The applicants deem the operation to be more akin to a hotel style operator for short to medium tenants.

“Our scheme will provide quality serviced accommodation that is not available in the area.”

A total of 332 people objected to the scheme after it was submitted to the council in August.

No comments were made in favour of the proposals.

Concerns were raised over the building being located in a conservation area near to schools, a church, community facilities and businesses.

Others said a HMO in the area would lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour and crime.

One resident commented: “This is a residential neighbourhood, next to a church and primary school.

“Placing 20 such individuals in close living accommodation with shared amenities is a recipe for conflict.

“Unfortunately, there is probably a need for this sort of accommodation in our society but it requires careful planning with regard to appropriate amenities and location, which this application does not meet.”

Further comments included claims that it was “not in keeping with the character of the area”.

Residents also said the building should be used for “other purposes”, such as a medical practice, youth centre, dance school or educational facility.

Refusing the application, a planning officer’s report said: “The use of the property as a 20-bedroom HMO would result in an over-intensive use of the property which would have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers through increased coming and goings and general disturbance resulting from the nature of the use.

“(It) would not provide a high standard of amenity for future occupants due to the over-intensive use of the building which would result in future residents sharing insufficient internal communal space and facilities.”

A similar scheme proposing a HMO at the same site for 23 residents was previously refused after more than 400 people objected.

In October last year, West Yorkshire Police officers raided the 6,000 sq ft premises and found eight rooms filled with 2,300 cannabis plants.

They also found a small living quarters with beds and refrigerated food, and the two “gardeners” were detained.