A PLANNING application to change a former office building into a house of multiple occupation in Bridgend has been denied, due to what was described as an over-concentration in the area.
The property based on Park Street, Bridgend, was proposed to be converted by developers at D2 PropCo Ltd, into a six-bedroom housing unit with communal shared facilities, as well as a shared outdoor courtyard.
However, these plans were denied by Bridgend Council after a planning meeting which saw a number of representatives including residents and councillors speaking against them.
One resident said while neighbours understood the need for this type of housing it would have a “significant adverse effect” if approved, with two other HMOs already in close proximity just metres away on the same street.
Other concerns with the development came over parking and noise issues, along with what was said to be numerous reports of occupants from the other HMOs taking and selling drugs in the back lane.
Representatives speaking on behalf of D2 PropCo Ltd said their properties were kept to high standards, with CCTV footage checked each morning and daily visits to occupants by the house managers.
Speaking at the meeting, Cllr Steven Bletsoe said: “Park Street is changing, and it’s not changing in a way that the residents who currently live there are comfortable with.” He added, “This is a conservation area, it is a residential area, but it’s becoming a HMO area.”
Officers said that in terms planning the application was acceptable, though some councillors noted that there was a policy in place which limited the number of HMOs within 50 metres to ten percent of the total number of properties.
As there were 29 properties a third HMO would take it slightly above that limit. Officers noted that despite the excess of this 10% it was important to find the right balance with planning and recommended the plans for approval.
Members of Bridgend’s planning authority later denied the application after a recorded vote, with six voting for and eight against on the basis that there was an over-intensification of HMOs exceeding the 10% policy, along with what was described as a perception of fear for residents who lived nearby.
