A developer has lost a planning appeal to turn a three-bed Southdown semi into a house in multiple occupation (HMO).
A planning application was submitted to Bath & North East Somerset Council last May for 32 The Oval, which is near the junction with Chestnut Grove and Ash Grove.
The proposal involved building single-storey rear and loft dormer extensions and changing the use of the family home to a six-bed HMO.
The council received 10 objections and ward councillor Jess David (Liberal Democrat, Moorlands) highlighted her concerns about the loss of another family home and the impact on parking.
In refusing permission last July, council planners said the proposal breached the tipping point where the concentration of HMOs begins to adversely impact on a community’s character and balance.
They also said although the proposed rear extension would be acceptable, a side dormer would harm the character and appearance of the area.
The developer appealed and the planning inspector appointed by the Secretary of State recently backed the council’s decision.
She said the council had demonstrated there would be 14 HMOs, including six ‘clipped’ HMOs on the edge of the 100-metre radius, which would result in a concentration of 13.9%, a clear conflict with the council’s 10% threshold.
Whilst HMOs are more concentrated on Coronation Avenue to the west, mapping data from the council showed a number of HMOs on The Oval, as well as in Chestnut Grove and Ash Grove.
Although the HMOs would be spread across a number of streets, the proposal would still result in an unacceptable level of HMO density within a 100-metre radius.
The inspector said it would therefore result in the unacceptable loss of accommodation in a locality in terms of mix, size and type, and would create an “overconcentration” of HMOs.
She added that the appellant had not provided evidence to suggest any of the HMOs identified by the council had been incorrectly classified, but had carried out their own research prior to making the planning application, based on information publicly available on the council’s website, which had shown only two other HMOs within a 100-metre radius.
The inspector acknowledged that this would have caused the appellant “some frustration” but added that how HMO data is published and updated is “unfortunately outside the remit of the appeal”.
She also agreed with the council that the proposed side dormer would look out of context.
