Residents and councillors battle plans for bedsits in street
RESIDENTS are fighting a tide of bedsits in a single north Bristol street where councillors have rejected attempts by the same developer to convert three family homes into shared houses since January.
But although South Gloucestershire Council planning committee has refused permission for each of the new houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) at Northville Road, in Filton, the proposed redevelopments will now all be decided by a planning inspector after appeals were lodged.
At the latest meeting on Thursday, members once more rebuffed Andrews Capital’s application to reconfigure a property in the street – this time a two-storey semidetached at 25 Northville Road into seven bedrooms – on the same grounds as before, insufficient parking and a proliferation of HMOs in the area.
It came after the same committee turned down plans by the company to convert bungalows at 58 and 64 Northville Road into bedsits for eight people in February and January respectively.
Development management committee members voted overwhelmingly against officer recommendation to grant permission on all three occasions.
A decision is yet to be made on plans resubmitted by another applicant to turn a semi-detached house at 99 Northville Road, on the corner of Third Avenue, into eightperson shared accommodation after they were refused in March.
Last week’s meeting was told a residents’ survey counted 24 HMOs in Northville Road – 16 per cent of the homes.
Councillors heard that according to local authority figures there were only six.
However, these did not include houses where fewer than five people shared communal bathrooms and kitchens, which do not need a licence, and there would be HMOs the council was unaware of.
Neighbour Shane Gibson told the committee that Filton was “suffering from a pandemic of HMOs” and that almost half of South Gloucestershire’s large shared houses were in the town.
He said more than 50 objections had been lodged against the proposals for 25 Northville Road
“Properties in Filton are bought as soon as they go on the market by developers, which means local families do not get an opportunity to purchase a home,” Mr Gibson said.
“This means families are being driven out by the developers, so the
character of the community changes and residents become transient and less likely to invest in businesses, local community projects and initiatives.
“I’ve witnessed neighbours of all demographics being extremely upset and having nervous breakdowns.
“As residents of Northville Road we’ve had to take a long look at ourselves
and our street and really question who on earth would choose to live here?”
Filton ward Cllr Adam Monk told members: “There is definitely not enough parking available.
“There is an ongoing issue with the density of our HMOs within the area which is being addressed through the current HMO policy consultation but this particular application is not in keeping.”
A planning officer said a parking survey submitted by the applicants demonstrated sufficient on-street spaces and that the increase in vehicles and impact on road safety would be “negligible”.
She said: “Officers are satisfied there is not an undue intensification in the area which could justify refusal of planning permission.”
Cllr Ernie Brown said: “On-street parking is a nightmare, it’s congested, there are quite a few double yellow lines in that road, so I would go for refusal.”
Cllr Mike Bell said: “I will be supporting the refusal. This is all deja vu.
“We’ve had a number of these all in the same road within 100 yards of each other.
“There is no reason for us to do any different than we’ve done before.”
He said an HMO policy, currently out to consultation, would hopefully restrict the number of bedsits in future.
Members voted 8-0 consent.
No date has yet been set for the three appeals, the grounds of which are failure to make a decision within the required timeframe.
At the same meeting, a separate application to turn 136 Northville Road from a six- to a seven-person HMO was approved.
Councillors said it was “completely different” to the other one because it only involved a change of use of a small upstairs study to a bedroom, it was on a corner plot with lots of space on the drive for parking and the building was already been used as a shared house. to refuse