HMO set to ‘cause everyone misery’
People living on a quiet road in Bath have spoken out against a new HMO approved in their neighbourhood.
The number of bedrooms at 6 Ambleside Road in Odd Down is set to double after developer Rivers Birtwell secured permission from the council to turn it into a house in multiple occupation. It will be extended and subdivided to create three new rooms.
Locals say the shared house, which will likely be rented by students, will bring “noise”, “antisocial behaviour” and even more “parking issues” to the residential street.
Ward councillor Joel Hirst also opposed the plans.
Ali Mohammed, 41, has a young child and lives next door to the approved HMO.
He said it would cause “misery” for locals and students alike.
He said: “The residents are very unhappy and the students are going to be unhappy because putting six rooms in a three-bedroom house will be so cramped. They will have no space and their mental health will decline.
“This road already has parking issues and bringing six more vehicles here will only exacerbate these. During term time it is so busy around here and then for three months of the year, it is a ghost town.
“More than 30 people signed a petition against this HMO and many of us objected to the plans on the council website. It will bring misery to Ambleside Road - the students will be miserable and so will we.”
He added that the developer had changed the plans shortly before they were approved, but that residents had not been made aware of the changes so they could redouble their objections.
Joel Hirst, the Liberal Democrat councillor for Odd Down, also condemned the HMO’S approval.
He said: “I feel the pendulum has swung too far towards utilising family homes for student accommodation, we urgently need more affordable family homes in Odd Down Ward and in B&NES, we need homes that enable people to be able to live close to where they work.”
He added: “Odd Down ward and the Kingsway area have experienced growth in HMOS in recent years. While I am supportive of thriving universities in B&NES, we need the universities to provide a larger proportion of accommodation on campus or in purpose-built student accommodation to help make a more sustainable B&NES.”
Mr Hirst also said he believed the developer Rivers Birtwell “may have inadvertently misrepresented in the application the density of HMOS in the area”.
B&NES Council policy states that only 10 per cent of properties in a 100-metre radius can be HMOS.
The Odd Down councillor wrote: “Through careful placement of the centre of the 100m radius by the developer and the missing out of one HMO in Canons Close has created the impression that the density is less than 10 per cent.”
However, council officer Angus Harris later confirmed that all the HMOS on Canons Close had been counted in the 100m radius drawn by the council and that there was a density of no more than six per cent HMOS around 6 Ambleside Road.
Since the HMO was approved on October 28, Mr Harris has admitted that he made an “error” during the process. He has now written a “retrospective” chair referral report which was added to the planning portal on November 1.
It states that, because Joel Hirst disagreed with Mr Harris’ opinion that the HMO should be permitted, the proposal should have been referred to the chair of the planning committee, so they could decide whether to refer it to the committee. However, this was not done and Mr Harris made the decision as the case officer.
In the retrospective report, Mr
Harris wrote: “In error, this application was not forwarded to the Chair and Vice Chair and proceeded to be determined via Delegated Decision.
“The grant of planning permission takes effect on written notification of the decision regardless of the scheme of delegation. There is no legal power to withdraw planning permission once granted, on the basis of an administrative error in the decision-making process.”
Planning committee chair Sue Craig read the retrospective report and decided that it would not have changed the final outcome.
B&NES Council has been approached for comment on this case.