The “exponential growth” in houses of multiple occupation (HMOs) in Odd Down has been highlighted by concerned local councillors.
Steve Hedges and Joel Hirst raised their concerns as they lodged their objection to plans to turn a three-bed mid-terrace house into an HMO with six single bedrooms.
The proposal to allow six sharers to live at a property on Eastover Grove was approved last week by Bath & North East Somerset Council. It involves adding a single-storey extension to enable the conversion to a small HMO.
There will be two bedrooms on the ground floor and four upstairs. Also on the ground floor will be communal space with facilities for shared accommodation.
The application was lodged by Rivers Birtwell, which specialises in accommodation for students and young professionals.
In support of the application, their consultants Lewis & Co Planning said: “In recent decades concentrations of HMOs have arisen in certain areas of Bath. In response, Bath & North East Somerset Council introduced a citywide Article 4 Direction in 2013.
“The Direction removes the permitted development right of C3 dwellinghouses to convert to C4 small HMOs. The Direction seeks to control, rather than resist, the conversion of houses into HMOs.
“HMOs play a valued role in the local housing mix. They provide affordable and accessible housing to important demographics, including students, hospitality workers and young professionals.”
They said the proposal for Eastover Grove complies with council policies. No residential property would be ‘sandwiched’ between HMOs and fewer than 10% of properties within a 100-metre radius are in HMO use.
There is another property in Eastover Grove that was granted permission to become a house of multiple occupation in 2022, but it is currently not in HMO use.
The consultants said the low level of HMOs in the area meant there would be no cumulative adverse impact caused to neighbours or the community.
They also highlighted that HMO occupiers are generally less likely to have access to cars than families and the site has the capacity to provide two off-street parking spaces.
Councillors Hedges and Hirst said that while recognising the data presented on HMOs, there has been an “exponential growth” in them in the wider Odd Down area.
The Lib Dem councillors said they do not support the loss of family houses to HMOs as it makes the area less sustainable.
“We believe more student housing should be built on campus.
“We feel for many families the rise in HMOs has ‘priced out’ people in Bath from the housing market.
“For these reasons, we urge the application to be rejected.”
Two neighbours had also lodged objections. One said: “This is a family home, not a student campus.”
They feared it would affect the value of their property and take another family home away from residents wishing to stay and live locally.
Another neighbour said: “If the property becomes student accommodation, there would likely be much disruption and noise … multiple occupancy could possibly mean late parties, loud music and a lot of bodies in a small space including the garden.
“Odd Down is a quiet area with families and schools nearby. I cannot see any positives into turning this property to a multiple occupancy.”
Both the vice chair and chair of the council’s planning committee agreed the decision could be delegated to the planning officer, rather than be determined by committee.
The officer’s report said that the proposal complies with relevant planning policies and will result in just a 2% concentration of HMOs within a 100m radius area. The threshold is 10%.
The report noted that the rear extension is of a scale which could be built under permitted development anyway, and there are no new windows proposed that would lead to overlooking. Soundproofing insulation will be installed and there will be storage in the back garden for four bikes.
The committee’s vice chair Councillor Ian Halsall (Lib Dem, Oldfield Park) acknowledged the anxieties of the ward members and neighbours but said the application must be determined in accordance with adopted policies.
He said: “An HMO is not simply a student occupied dwelling but intended to meet the demands of a cross-section of the community in a difficult housing market and for others to find adequate accommodation in the city, thus contributing to the mix of residential properties.
“There will be no material external changes to the property other than the rear extension which is deemed to be in scale and proportion to the host building.”
Councillor Halsall said no highway or parking issues had been identified and being well below the 10% HMO policy threshold and not ‘sandwiching in’ the adjacent property, there would not be any adverse impact on neighbours.
The committee’s chair Councillor Duncan Hounsell (Lib Dem, Saltford) said he noted the comments of the ward councillors but the application had been tested against policy objectives.
He said: “There is no significant harm to the amenity of neighbours. The objections of the ward councillors conflate HMOs with student accommodation. These are not the same categories.
“A ruling in an appeal case made clear that the council is deemed irresponsible and liable to costs if the decision-making is not policy related and prejudiced against any demographic group in a ward, e.g. students.
“The committee could not reach any other decision than to agree with the officer’s recommendation to permit.”
