Sandwell Planning Watch: HMO Madness, Hidden Loopholes and the Council That Needs to Wake Up
Sandwell’s latest weekly planning list has landed, and if anyone at the Council House is still pretending the HMO problem is under control, they may wish to remove the blindfold, put down the corporate script and read their own paperwork.
The weekly list run on 24 August 2026 may only contain 19 applications, but it is absolutely loaded with the sort of issues residents have been warning about for years: a proposed 13-bedroom HMO, a 6-bed HMO by Lawful Development Certificate, an existing HMO being pushed from 6 occupants to 8, another 4-person HMO by LDC, the proposed demolition of the Crown Inn, a private members club returning after refusal, nursing-home parking changes, school and council-linked applications, industrial demolition and yet more condition-discharge paperwork.
In other words, another week in Sandwell Planning Bingo.
Eyes down. Dabbers ready. Residents exhausted.
I have already sent a briefing to Reform councillors on this week’s applications. Now we need action, not nodding. Not “we’ll look into it”. Not another municipal shrug wrapped in warm words.
Reform controls Sandwell Council now. Sandwell’s own councillor page states the current political breakdown is Reform 41 seats and Labour 28 seats, meaning Sandwell is currently Reform-controlled.
That matters.
Yes, many of these problems were inherited. Nobody sensible denies that.
But the response is not inherited.
The response belongs to the current administration.
And right now, Reform needs to get a grip.
This week’s HMO list is frankly ridiculous
Let’s start with the obvious.
This week’s list contains four HMO-related applications.
Four.
In one weekly list.
This is not a minor planning ripple. This is a flashing red warning light.
9 West Cross Shopping Centre, Smethwick — 13 bedrooms
DC/26/71753 proposes a first-floor rear extension to create three additional bedrooms to an existing HMO, making 13 bedrooms in total.
Thirteen bedrooms.
That is not a modest alteration. That is not a quiet residential tweak. That is a large HMO.
A 13-bedroom HMO should trigger immediate scrutiny on:
Parking.
Waste.
Fire safety.
Licensing.
Noise.
Management.
Neighbour amenity.
Comings and goings.
Existing HMO concentration.
Impact on the surrounding area.
If a 13-bedroom HMO does not get councillors moving, what exactly will?
A developer arriving with a marching band and a skip full of wheelie bins?
41 Highgate Street, Cradley Heath — 6-bed HMO by LDC
DC/26/71821 proposes changing a residential property into a 6-bedroom / 6-person HMO, with single-storey rear extensions, a loft conversion and a rear dormer window. It is being pursued through a Lawful Development Certificate.
This matters because a Lawful Development Certificate is not a normal planning application.
It is a legal-certification route.
That means residents may not get the same ability to object on ordinary planning grounds, even though the result may still be a family home being used very differently.
And here it is not just a change of use.
It is change of use plus physical expansion.
So when people say “it’s only technical”, residents should translate that as:
“This might still change your street, but the process may give you less voice.”
That is the problem.
18 Talbot Road, Smethwick — 6 occupants to 8 occupants
DC/26/71947 proposes changing a six-bedroom / six-occupant HMO into a six-bedroom / eight-occupant HMO.
Same number of bedrooms. More people.
That means more pressure on shared facilities, more waste, more movement, more potential noise, more management burden and more pressure on parking.
This is how intensification creeps through the system.
Not with a massive headline.
With a few extra occupants here, another room there, a revised use class, and the usual soothing phrase: “assessed on its own merits”.
That phrase is now doing enough heavy lifting to qualify as construction equipment.
7 Ragley Walk, Rowley Regis — another HMO by LDC
DC/26/71949 proposes changing a single dwellinghouse into a 4-person HMO, with external alterations, again by Lawful Development Certificate.
Some will say, “It is only four people.”
That misses the point.
The issue is cumulative.
One HMO here.
Another HMO there.
One by planning application.
One by LDC.
One family home gone.
One more street altered.
One more set of neighbours told to keep an eye on the portal.
That is not a strategy.
That is planning by drip-feed.
The visible HMO problem and the hidden HMO problem
This is where Sandwell Council must stop playing word games.
There are two HMO problems.
The first is the visible problem: the HMOs that appear in weekly planning lists because they need planning permission.
The second is the hidden problem: the small HMOs that may not need planning permission at all and therefore may never appear in the planning list for residents to object to.
Sandwell’s own HMO guidance says small HMOs of 3 to 6 people do not currently require planning permission in Sandwell because they are treated as permitted development. It also says large HMOs of 7 or more people do require planning permission.
Sandwell also says it does not currently have an Article 4 Direction for HMOs.
That is the loophole.
A small HMO may need a licence, but it may not need planning permission.
So residents can see a family home turning into an HMO and still be told there is no planning application, no planning consultation, no planning objection route and no planning assessment of parking, concentration or street character.
That is not good enough.
Pound Road, Wednesbury — the loophole in real life
Residents around Pound Road, Wednesbury have raised concerns about a proposed 4-bedroom HMO at 22 Pound Road.
I am not publishing names, signatures, phone numbers, email addresses or private contact details. This is about the public issue, not exposing residents.
The concerns raised are exactly the sort of concerns appearing all over Sandwell:
No off-street parking.
A narrow cul-de-sac.
Existing parking pressure.
Young children and elderly residents nearby.
A walking route used by families and schoolchildren.
Existing HMO concentration nearby.
Late-night noise.
Rubbish left on pavements and roads.
Loss of a long-standing family home.
Residents feeling powerless before the change happens.
Residents have also raised the concern that there are already several HMO properties within a short distance of the address.
That is exactly why the council needs a street-by-street HMO tracker.
Not vague comfort.
Not “report it later”.
Not “try Private Sector Housing if there’s a problem”.
A tracker.
A map.
Evidence.
Control.
If small HMOs can appear without planning permission, then licensing and enforcement must be absolutely sharp. And if there is evidence of clustering, Sandwell should be moving urgently toward Article 4 controls.
Borough-wide HMO licensing exists — but licensing is not planning
Let’s be accurate.
Sandwell does now have borough-wide Additional Licensing for HMOs. The council says the borough-wide scheme came into force on 1 October 2024.
Sandwell’s HMO guidance says that since 1 October 2024, Additional Licensing has applied borough-wide, meaning a licence is needed even where there are only 3 people in 2 households.
Good.
That is a necessary step.
But it is not enough.
Licensing is not planning.
Licensing can check whether the property is suitable, whether standards are met, whether the landlord is fit and proper, whether management arrangements are in place, and whether licence conditions are followed.
But licensing does not automatically give neighbours a planning voice.
It does not stop a family home becoming a small HMO in the first place.
It does not properly assess cumulative concentration.
It does not answer whether one small road already has too many HMOs.
It does not restore the family home once it has gone.
And it does not give residents confidence when they are told to wait until problems happen and then report them.
That is not prevention.
That is aftercare.
Article 4 is the missing piece
An Article 4 Direction is the planning tool that can remove permitted development rights in designated areas, meaning small HMOs would need planning permission where the evidence justifies it.
Sandwell has already discussed this issue. In June 2024, Cabinet approved borough-wide additional licensing and also agreed enforcement activity for unlicensed premises would commence from 1 January 2025 following a grace period.
In November 2025, Sandwell Council considered a motion which stated that Additional HMO Licensing had been introduced to improve standards across the borough, and the same item recognised concerns around HMO concentration, parking pressures, waste, anti-social behaviour and community cohesion.
Sandwell’s Local Plan consultation material also shows that concerns about Article 4 are not some fringe obsession. The council’s own response to representations recorded that, at that stage, there was no intention to introduce an Article 4 Direction and that the council was instead consulting on additional HMO licensing.
So here is the blunt question.
If Sandwell has moved to borough-wide licensing because HMOs are a serious issue, why has it still not moved to Article 4 in HMO pressure areas?
Licensing manages HMOs once they exist.
Article 4 helps control where they appear.
Residents need both.
Queens Road, Smethwick — the appeal shows exactly what residents are up against
The tracker also needs to keep 1 Queens Road, Smethwick firmly in view.
The original weekly list recorded DC/26/71759, a proposed change of use from residential dwelling to a 9-bedroom / 9-person HMO at 1 Queens Road.
That application was refused by Sandwell Council and has now gone to appeal.
Recent appeal material provided to me appears to show the applicant arguing, in summary, that a large family could theoretically occupy the dwelling, that HMO activity would not necessarily be greater, that the dwelling entrance is unchanged, that HMO licensing would provide future control, and that additional housing provision should weigh in favour of the proposal.
This is precisely the problem.
A 9-person HMO is not just “a house with people in it”.
A family living as one household is not the same as nine unrelated occupants with potentially separate routines, separate visitors, separate vehicles, different turnover, different waste patterns and different management needs.
The idea that increased activity is not “guaranteed” is a weak comfort to neighbours. Planning is not supposed to wait until harm is guaranteed. It is supposed to assess reasonable impact before the damage is done.
And relying on HMO licensing as the safety net is not good enough.
Licensing is not a substitute for planning control.
A licence may help manage standards. It does not automatically cure harm to residential character, cumulative HMO concentration, parking pressure or neighbour amenity.
Most worrying is the parking issue. The appeal material appears to refer to parking and a conflict with a bus stop on Queens Road, before seeking to play down the concern because the crossover already exists and highway users would exercise caution.
That should be challenged hard.
A 9-person HMO and parking arrangements conflicting with a bus stop is not a minor footnote. It is exactly the sort of real-world issue residents understand immediately and planning paperwork too often tries to soften.
And residents are now squeezed at appeal stage too
There is another problem.
For many appeals relating to applications submitted on or after 1 April 2026, the Planning Inspectorate says most appeals will follow the Part 1 written representations procedure. Under that procedure, interested people are not able to submit comments at the appeal stage; comments made at the application stage are forwarded and considered by the Inspector.
In plain English:
The applicant can appeal.
The council defends the refusal.
The Inspector decides.
Residents may get no fresh chance to respond to the appeal arguments.
That is democracy with the volume turned down.
So residents must get their objections right at the application stage. But that only works where there actually is a planning application.
Where a small HMO falls under permitted development, residents may get no planning stage at all.
That is the trap.
Visible HMOs go through planning.
Some are refused.
Some go to appeal.
Residents may then be locked out of further comment.
Hidden HMOs may not go through planning at all.
Residents get told to report problems later.
What a system.
Crown Inn, Cradley Heath — pub demolition by weekly list
This week’s list is not just about HMOs.
DC/26/71926 proposes demolition of the Crown Inn, 97 Station Road, Cradley Heath, and replacement with a convenience retail unit.
A pub is not just a building with a bar in it. It can be a landmark, a social space, a community asset and part of local identity.
If the Crown Inn is no longer viable, show the evidence.
Has it been marketed properly?
Was continued pub use tested?
Was community use explored?
Is there local heritage value?
Is there an Asset of Community Value issue?
What is the demolition justification?
What will replace it?
What about deliveries, opening hours, parking and potential alcohol sales?
Demolition is final.
Once the pub is gone, it is gone.
It should not disappear through the weekly list while everyone is distracted by HMO chaos.
Grand House, Oldbury — back after refusal
DC/26/71977 proposes changing the ground floor of Grand House, Popes Lane, from radio station/storage to a private members club. The weekly list states this is a revision to refused planning permission DC/24/70054.
When a refused application comes back, councillors should ask one simple question:
What has actually changed?
Not what has been reworded.
Not what has been repackaged.
Not what has been sprinkled with planning glitter.
What materially changed?
Private members clubs can raise issues around noise, late hours, music, alcohol, taxis, parking, anti-social behaviour and neighbour amenity.
Residents deserve a clear before-and-after explanation.
Education, care and condition changes still need scrutiny
This week also includes council-linked education and school estate applications, including Connor Education Centre and Harvills Hawthorn Primary School.
These may be needed. They may be positive. But councillors still need to know what provision is being created.
Mainstream?
SEND?
Alternative provision?
Temporary capacity?
Long-term expansion?
How many pupils?
What ages?
What traffic?
What safeguarding arrangements?
What impact on residents?
There is also Ash Lodge Nursing Home, where the application involves changes to a site block plan and a new condition relating to parking.
Parking at a nursing home is not a technical footnote. It affects staff, visitors, ambulances, deliveries, neighbours and road safety.
And then there are the condition discharges: Intersection House, Coppice Street, Longwear Alloys, Colas, and land adjacent 320 Halesowen Road.
Condition discharges are where the real detail can be signed off: drainage, contamination, construction management, landscaping, lighting, materials, parking, noise and working hours.
This is why residents need plain-English trackers, not a digital treasure hunt through the planning portal.
What this week means for the Planning Watch tracker
This week’s applications should be added as follows.
RED tracker
DC/26/71753 — 9 West Cross Shopping Centre
Large HMO expansion to 13 bedrooms.
DC/26/71821 — 41 Highgate Street
6-bed / 6-person HMO by LDC, with extensions and loft conversion.
DC/26/71947 — 18 Talbot Road
HMO intensification from 6 to 8 occupants.
DC/26/71926 — Crown Inn
Pub demolition / community asset / local-centre impact.
DC/26/71759 — 1 Queens Road
Refused 9-bedroom / 9-person HMO now at appeal; tracker issues include residential character, neighbour amenity, parking, bus stop conflict, HMO concentration, reliance on licensing and limited resident voice at appeal stage.
RED / AMBER tracker
DC/26/71949 — 7 Ragley Walk
C3 dwelling to 4-person HMO by LDC.
22 Pound Road, Wednesbury
Proposed small HMO / permitted development loophole / Article 4 evidence case / resident concern over parking, concentration and family-home loss.
DC/26/71967 — Ash Lodge Nursing Home
Parking condition variation.
DC/26/71977 — Grand House
Private members club revised after refusal.
DOC/26/01058 — Intersection House
Large condition-discharge bundle.
AMBER tracker
DC/26/71837 — Connor Education Centre
Council-linked education estate change.
DC/26/71966 — Harvills Hawthorn Primary School
Modular classroom block.
PD/26/03308 — Johnson Controls
Industrial plant demolition.
DOC/26/01056 / 01057 / 01059 / 01060
Condition discharge monitoring.
The bigger picture since the start of the year
This is not one bad weekly list.
It is part of a pattern.
The tracker has already picked up:
HMOs and HMO expansion.
Children’s residential care homes.
Adult care and supported living.
C2 care uses.
Lawful Development Certificates.
Retention and retrospective applications.
Telecoms masts.
Condition discharges.
Open-space and public asset pressure.
Council-linked applications.
School estate changes.
High street changes.
Pub and community-use concerns.
Earlier lists included, among others, 1 Queens Road as a 9-person HMO, 124 Cheshire Road as a revised HMO proposal after previous refusals, 18 Lemox Road as a retained residential home for up to two children, 26 Cross Lane as a proposed adult residential care home, 169 Hamstead Road as a children’s care home LDC, and 14 Russell Close as another children’s residential home LDC.
The 20 July list also recorded telecoms mast proposals at Trinity Road North and Ocean Drive / Black Country New Road, while later lists added more telecoms infrastructure and open-space concerns.
The 17 August list added 14 Russell Close, 48A Churchfields Road retention of dwelling, Edwin Richards Quarry condition discharge and Archer Way condition discharges.
The pattern is not hard to spot.
A house becomes an HMO.
Another becomes a care home.
A large HMO goes to appeal.
A small HMO slips through without planning.
A pub faces demolition.
A mast appears.
A condition is discharged.
A refused scheme returns.
A school building changes.
A council-linked application appears.
Then residents are told to trust the process.
Residents have seen the process.
That is why they do not trust it.
What Reform must now do
Reform councillors need to stop admiring the problem and start gripping it.
They should demand:
A live public HMO tracker by ward and street.
A street-by-street HMO concentration map.
A list of licensed HMOs, pending HMO licence applications and suspected unlicensed HMOs.
A cross-check between planning, licensing and enforcement.
An urgent Article 4 evidence base for HMO pressure areas.
A timetable for Article 4 consultation.
A review of all HMO-related LDCs.
A report on HMO enforcement action since January 2025.
A public list of HMO complaints by category: waste, noise, overcrowding, disrepair, ASB and poor management.
A clear process for residents to report suspected unlicensed HMOs.
A condition-discharge tracker in plain English.
A pub and community asset tracker.
A councillor alert system for HMO, LDC, C2, pub-loss and major condition-discharge applications.
This is not radical.
This is basic governance.
If Reform wants to claim it is different, this is where it proves it.
What MPs should do
MPs also need to stop treating this as a local inbox problem.
They should press Government on:
Small HMOs bypassing planning in areas already under pressure.
Residents having no planning voice where there is no Article 4 Direction.
Appeal procedures limiting fresh resident involvement.
The gap between licensing control and planning control.
The need for stronger powers where streets already show HMO clustering.
The need for councils to publish usable HMO concentration data.
Residents should not need a law degree, a portal account and the patience of a saint just to understand what is happening on their own road.
Final thought
This week’s list is bad enough on its own.
A 13-bedroom HMO.
A 6-person HMO by LDC.
An HMO increasing to 8 occupants.
Another 4-person HMO by LDC.
A pub demolition.
A nursing-home parking change.
A private members club returning after refusal.
A council-linked education scheme.
A school modular classroom.
Industrial demolition.
Multiple condition discharges.
But the bigger story is worse.
The visible HMO problem is in the weekly planning list.
The hidden HMO problem is in streets like Pound Road, where residents may not get a planning say at all because the proposal falls under small-HMO permitted development.
And the appeal problem is in places like Queens Road, where residents can object, the council can refuse, the applicant can appeal — and residents may then get no fresh chance to answer the appeal case.
That is not a system built around residents.
It is a system residents are expected to survive.
Sandwell has borough-wide licensing, yes.
But licensing is not enough.
Licensing manages HMOs once they exist.
Article 4 helps control where they can appear.
Planning scrutiny gives residents a voice before the damage is done.
That is the missing piece.
Enough fog.
Enough portals.
Enough “each case on its own merits”.
Enough waiting until streets are already changed.
Reform controls Sandwell now.
It is time to control the HMO problem.
#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #PlanningWatch #HMOs #Article4 #HMOLicensing #QueensRoad #PoundRoad #Smethwick #Wednesbury #CradleyHeath #RowleyRegis #ReformCouncil #ResidentVoice #LocalDemocracy #WeeklyListOfDoom
