An appeal against a council’s decision to reject plans to turn a derelict hotel into housing has been thrown out. The Planning Inspectorate has backed the decision of Worthing’s planning committee to not allow the former Windsor House Hotel to be used as a house in multiple occupation (HMO). In January 2023, the planning committee refused the application by housing and social care provider SDR Group to convert the former hotel in Windsor Road into shared living accommodation.
The proposed plan included 44 bedrooms divided into five self-contained annexes, each with shared kitchen, dining and living spaces. SDR Group appealed against the decision and, in July this year, a planning inspector heard evidence from the company, residents and Worthing Borough Council officers and councillors. During the hearing, SDR Group said that the building could be used to house up to 83 people.
Planning inspector Stewart Glassar dismissed SDR’s appeal on the grounds that the proposed redevelopment would cause noise and disturbance that would damage the character of the area and negatively affect nearby residents. “Concerns were expressed that aside from noise and disturbance, future acts of anti-social behaviour could arise in the area as a result of the proposal,” he said. “It was also evident from the hearing that a fear of crime is a concern locally.
It seemed to me that all these apprehensions rested not wholly on an extrapolation of past events in the area. There were assumptions as to the characteristics of possible future occupiers if the building were used as temporary or emergency accommodation. Read more: Villagers fight against 1,450-home 'new town' on Sussex countryside “However, I am mindful that this is not a proposal for supported accommodation and there is no substantive evidence that it would be occupied by vulnerable people requiring a high level of support.
” Mr Glassar went on to say they had not found evidence the scheme would cause harm in terms of anti-social behaviour, however it would be harmful to the character of the area. “There would be some short-term economic benefits whilst the building was being converted, as well as some longer-term economic benefits once occupied,” they wrote. “The provision of housing for single-person households would have social benefits and there would also be some benefit from the external works, principally the reduction in hardstanding and provision of landscaping.
“While I have not found harm in terms of the effect of the proposal on antisocial behaviour and the fear of crime , I have found harm in respect of the character of the area and the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers as a result of the noise and disturbance likely to arise. “These harms in this instance are likely to be significant and long-lasting.” In conclusion Mr Glassar said: “While there would be some beneficial aspects of the scheme, considered overall the development would cause harms which would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole.
There are no other material considerations which lead me to determine the appeal other than in accordance with the development plan.”.
