Find, save and share Public Notices that affect you in the area.
Search the Public Notice Portal What is the Public Notice Portal?What is the Public Notice Portal?
The Public Notice Portal carries statutory public notices published in local newspapers and is the fastest and most effective way of finding out what is happening in YOUR neighbourhood.
Search the Public Notice PortalPlans to convert a Blackpool hotel into assisted living accommodation for up to 12 adults with mental health needs have been refused, after a wave of objections from neighbouring hoteliers who said the scheme was "HMO by the back door" and would damage the resort's tourist economy.
Blackpool Borough Council rejected the application for the Ardsley Hotel at 20 Woodfield Road on March 17 2026.
The proposal, submitted by Mrs Gulshan Nahid through agent Hasnaat Saeed of Accrington, sought to convert the three-storey terraced property from a hotel into supported living accommodation for adults, with two full-time carers on site at all times.
The application drew ten formal objections, nine from fellow hoteliers on Woodfield Road itself. Neighbours described the street as a successful, family-friendly holiday zone and argued the change would undermine an area that had shown resilience even through difficult trading periods.
One said the hotel remained economically viable and questioned whether the proposal was driven by genuine care needs or financial gain.
"The use of 20 Woodfield Road as a hotel is definitely economically viable."
"The new owners are just looking at the best way to maximise their income by going for assisted living which, if unsuccessful, can then become a HMO."
The council's own planning officer agreed that the viability case put forward was deeply unconvincing.
During a site visit in March, the inspector found the property in "a very good state of repair, with rooms kept tidy, clean, and made up with bedding and furniture".
The officer found the viability statement made "very generalised statements about the former operation" and failed to meet the evidence standard required by Blackpool's Holiday Accommodation Supplementary Planning Document.
One of the most vocal objectors, said the decision reflected the views of a community that had seen the damage done by previous waves of poor-quality conversions in the town.
"Blackpool was previously destroyed by people making money from HMOs and bedsits," she said.
"This should never be allowed in an area that is getting better with all the new investment."
"This is an HMO by the back door and will not be tolerated by the locals who already live in Blackpool."
Neighbours also pointed out that the previous owner had retired, not failed, and that the property had been withdrawn from sale at an overpriced level before being sold at a more realistic figure.
Beyond the tourism argument, objectors and the council both raised serious concerns about whether the site was actually suitable for vulnerable residents at all.
The planning officer found that nearly half of the 12 bedrooms fell below acceptable space standards, with some as small as 6.7 square metres.
Read more
Two rooms on the second floor had no bathroom on the same floor, and there was no outdoor amenity space for residents, something the council described as "wholly unacceptable" for people with complex needs.
The council's Adult Services team was consulted and went further, saying the scheme would not meet local need in any case.
"A single unit offering 12 bedrooms in close proximity, all sharing a single kitchen and dining area, would not meet local need to support people who are otherwise unable to sustain a tenancy," a spokesperson confirmed.
"We would not support this application based on the information provided."
The council also noted that two similar facilities already existed within 400 metres of the site, on St Chad's Road and Alexandria Road, meaning the application fell foul of planning policy regardless of other concerns.
Refusal was issued on four grounds: lack of demonstrated local need; unjustified loss of holiday accommodation in a protected zone; poor living standards for future occupants; and the failure to make any external alterations to establish an appropriate residential character for the building.
Share