Paulette Hamilton MP has objected to a second House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) application on Tyburn Road, following concerns about parking, road safety, waste management and the growing concentration of HMOs across Erdington.
Just weeks after objecting to a seven-bedroom HMO application on Tyburn Road, Paulette has opposed another proposal further down the same road.
With Tyburn Road already a busy route, Paulette believes the safety of residents and the impact on the surrounding neighbourhood must be taken seriously.
Her objection raises concerns about the lack of safe and adequate parking, the absence of clear information on waste management and transport, and the cumulative impact of further HMOs in the area.
Poorly managed HMOs can create difficulties for existing residents, while an increasing concentration of such properties risks changing the character of established neighbourhoods.
Paulette said: “Enough is enough. I’m encouraged that 177 residents have signed my petition to make their voices heard and send a clear message that our neighbourhoods cannot keep absorbing more HMOs. Residents deserve better.
“Now that the consultation has closed, I urge Birmingham City Council to take these concerns seriously and reject this application.”
Read Paulette’s full objection letter below.
Hamzah Rehman
Birmingham City Council
Council House
Victoria Square
Birmingham B1 1BB
Sent my email
12 October 2026
Dear Hamza,
2026/04589/PA – Change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to small HMO (Use Class C4) – 670 Tyburn Road, Birmingham, B24 9RP
I am writing to object to the proposed change of use of 670 Tyburn Road, Erdington, Birmingham, B24 9RP, to a 5-bed House in Multiple Occupation. I consider that the proposal would be contrary to a number of adopted Birmingham planning policies and would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the area, the existing housing stock, parking and highway safety, waste management and the quality of accommodation for future occupants.
The starting point for considering this application should be Birmingham City Council’s adopted Policy DM11, which specifically governs Houses in Multiple Occupation. Policy DM11 states that HMO proposals should protect the residential amenity and character of the area and should not give rise to unacceptable adverse cumulative impacts on amenity, character, appearance, highway safety and parking. It also requires HMOs to provide high quality accommodation with adequate living space, washing facilities, outdoor amenity space and recycling and refuse storage. The Council introduced its city wide Article 4 Direction precisely because the conversion of family houses into small HMOs requires proper planning scrutiny and the location and concentration of HMOs need to be managed across the city.
The proposed conversion would alter the established residential character of this part of Tyburn Road by changing a conventional family dwelling into accommodation for five unrelated adults. This is not simply a change in the number of people living at the property. A property occupied by five unrelated individuals has different patterns of occupation, comings and goings, parking demand, refuse generation and use of communal facilities from a conventional family household.
Policy DM11 expressly requires these cumulative effects on the character and appearance of the area to be considered. The Council’s HMO SPD also recognises that HMOs can affect the character and balance of local communities and that the Council’s approach is intended to prevent harmful concentrations and protect residential amenity.
There is also a significant concern regarding the loss of existing family housing. Birmingham’s adopted Policy TP35 states that the Council will seek to prevent the loss, through conversion or redevelopment, of housing that is in good condition or could be restored to good condition at reasonable cost. Such loss is only to be permitted where there are good planning justifications or an identified social need for the proposed use. Policy TP30 similarly requires housing proposals to support mixed, balanced and sustainable communities and to take account of housing need, the locality and local housing market trends.
This is particularly important given the acknowledged shortage of larger homes in Birmingham. Birmingham City Council itself states that there is a shortage of large properties of four or more bedrooms across the city and that there is greater demand for houses than flats. The Council’s housing evidence also identifies appreciable demand for four or more bedroom homes, including within the owner occupied, social rented and private rented sectors. The conversion of an existing family dwelling therefore needs to be considered against the very real need to retain family housing within the city’s existing stock.
I therefore consider that the application has not demonstrated the good planning justification or identified social need required to justify the loss of a family dwelling under Policy TP35. Increasing the number of individual occupants from a family household to five unrelated occupants should not automatically be treated as making more effective use of the property when doing so removes an existing dwelling from the pool of conventional family accommodation at a time when Birmingham is experiencing significant housing pressure. The Council’s own planning evidence recognises that the conversion of family housing to HMOs can be problematic because Birmingham has a relatively high level of families and this is expected to grow.
The parking arrangements are another significant concern. The proposal provides only two parking spaces for five unrelated occupants. The Council’s HMO SPD specifically recognises that HMOs can place additional pressure on local parking because of the number of unrelated adults occupying a property and confirms that the Birmingham Parking SPD standards apply to HMO proposals.
A recent Planning Inspectorate appeal decision 9 (Appeal Ref: APP/P4605/C/24/3348611) confirmed that the recommended HMO level is one parking space per two rooms. On that basis, a five bedroom HMO would generate a recommended requirement of 2.5 spaces, meaning that two spaces would fall below that level.
The shortfall is particularly concerning at this location because 670 Tyburn Road is situated on Tyburn Road, which forms part of a designated Birmingham red route. The Council’s own documentation identifies Tyburn Road as a red route between the Salford Circus and Kingsbury Road junctions. This is a major strategic road corridor and the proposal should not be considered in isolation from the existing highway environment.
There is therefore a real risk that vehicles belonging to residents of the proposed HMO will be displaced onto surrounding streets if the two on-site spaces are occupied. Five unrelated adults cannot reasonably be assumed to have the same parking requirements as a single family household, particularly where there is no evidence demonstrating that the proposed occupants will be car-free. The application should therefore demonstrate, with evidence, how parking demand will be accommodated without increasing pressure on surrounding residential streets or creating highway safety problems. This is directly relevant to Policy DM11’s requirement that an HMO should not result in unacceptable adverse cumulative impacts on highway safety and parking and to the Council’s parking and servicing policy framework.
The application also raises substantial concerns regarding waste and refuse storage. Five unrelated occupants will inevitably generate household waste from five separate occupants, with greater potential for packaging, food waste and general waste than would ordinarily be expected from a smaller household. Policy DM11 expressly requires HMO proposals to provide recycling and refuse storage, while the HMO SPD states that the external area serving the dwelling must be sufficient to accommodate waste storage requirements.
This issue is particularly important given Birmingham’s new waste and recycling arrangements. The Council is introducing weekly food waste collections alongside fortnightly household waste and recycling collections, with residents required to manage separate waste streams. The Council’s current arrangements also require bins to be stored on the property rather than left permanently on the street and require bins to be returned to the property following collection.
The application does not, in my view, adequately demonstrate how five unrelated occupants will responsibly manage the different waste streams generated by the property. There should be clear information showing where the general waste, recycling and food waste containers will be stored, whether there is sufficient capacity for five occupants, how contamination will be prevented, how the containers will be securely and safely stored between collections, how they will be moved to the collection point and how any additional waste that cannot fit within the allocated containers will be dealt with. This is not a minor management matter because the Council’s current service arrangements state that extra rubbish bags left beside the household waste bin will not be collected.
The proposed internal accommodation also gives rise to concerns about whether the development provides the high quality accommodation required by Policy DM11 and the HMO SPD. In particular, Room 2 does not have access to its own bathroom or shower other than the shared bathroom and shower on the ground floor. While shared washing facilities are not automatically unacceptable within an HMO, the Council’s HMO SPD requires appropriately sized, proportioned and equipped communal and washing facilities relative to the expected number of occupants. The application should therefore clearly demonstrate that the proposed bathroom provision is adequate for five unrelated occupants and that the arrangement provides a satisfactory standard of amenity for all future residents.
There is also insufficient supporting information to allow the full impacts of the proposal to be properly assessed. In particular, the application should demonstrate how parking will be managed, how on-street parking impacts will be prevented, how refuse and recycling will be stored and managed, and how the property will be operated and maintained as an HMO. Birmingham’s own planning information requirements state that a Parking Management Plan should address measures to manage parking provision, control potential on-street parking, monitoring and review, and parking surveys where there is significant parking pressure. The purpose is specifically to demonstrate that development will not increase on-street parking and congestion.
The absence of adequate information is especially concerning given the constrained nature of the site and the location on Tyburn Road. The applicant should not simply assume that the impacts can be resolved through future management. The planning application needs to provide sufficient evidence for the Council to determine whether the proposal complies with the development plan.
In the absence of a proper transport and parking assessment, a clear waste management arrangement and sufficient information concerning the management and safety of the HMO, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with Policy DM11 and the related amenity, highway and parking policies.
The proposal should also be considered against Policy PG3, which requires development to achieve high quality design, create safe environments and contribute to a strong sense of place. The HMO SPD specifically states that HMO development should be designed to a high standard and create safe environments following Secure by Design principles. Without sufficient information regarding the management, security and safe operation of the property, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed use would meet these requirements.
Taken together, the loss of an existing family dwelling, the effect on the established character and balance of the neighbourhood, the inadequate parking provision, the particular highway constraints associated with Tyburn Road, the absence of a satisfactory waste management strategy, the concerns regarding the adequacy of bathroom provision and the lack of supporting transport, waste and safety information mean that the proposal has, in my view, not demonstrated compliance with the adopted development plan.
I therefore ask that planning permission for the proposed five person HMO at 670 Tyburn Road is refused. In particular, I ask the Council to assess the application against Policy DM11 of the Development Management in Birmingham DPD, Policy TP35 concerning the existing housing stock, Policy TP30 concerning the type and mix of housing and the creation of mixed and balanced communities, Policy PG3 concerning place-making and safe environments, and the relevant amenity, highway safety, parking and servicing policies, together with the adopted Birmingham HMO and Parking SPDs.
I have also enclosed a petition signed by 177 local residents who share these concerns and are opposed to the proposed HMO.
Best wishes,
Paulette Hamilton MP