A decision on whether to permit plans to turn a four-bed family home in Whiteway into a seven-bed house in multiple occupation (HMO) has been deferred over concerns about the accuracy of the data presented by council officers.
The Guildhall entrance in Bath | Photo © chrisdorney / Shutterstock.com
Councillor Sarah Moore (Twerton & Whiteway, Liberal Democrat) had objected to KBR Developments Ltd’s proposal for 26 Wedgwood Road, believing it did not pass the HMO concentration test.
The proposal also drew objections from seven local residents regarding the high number of HMOs in the area already and the “appalling” parking situation, as well as concerns about “overdevelopment” of the mid-terraced house.
Bath & North East Somerset Council planning officers had calculated that the conversion would result in 12 of 122 residential properties within a 100-metre radius being HMOs, equating to 9.8% which is just under the 10% threshold.
They said no residential property would be ‘sandwiched’ by HMOs, the area is well-served by buses, and a parking shed for seven bikes would be provided.
They said there were “no unacceptable impacts” to warrant refusal.
But at the planning meeting on Wednesday 18th February, Councillor Moore queried whether 18 flats had been counted in Blocks 1 to 19 of Wedgwood Road where there are actually only 10 as they are odd number properties.
She said the row of seven houses in Wedgwood Road already has four HMOs in it, and the occupants are having to park in Kelston View.
She highlighted that the university bus service is subsidised and currently at risk so might not continue and was concerned that occupants of the proposed HMO would not use bikes, as they would have to be carried or wheeled through the house from the rear garden.
Planning committee chair Councillor Tim Ball (Twerton & Whiteway, Lib Dem) also raised the possibility of inaccurate calculations, saying Flats 1 and 2 Meade House had not existed for at least 20 years as they are leased out to Southside Family Project.
The planning officer at the meeting said calculations had been based on latest council data which should be accurate.
Sarah James, the council’s deputy head of planning management, said that given the uncertainty, it was acceptable to defer the application and bring it back to the next planning committee.
She said this would give planning officers the opportunity to investigate every single property that councillors were concerned had not been counted, so they could come back with “absolute clarity”.
