HMO for nine people in Scarborough rejected over 'unacceptable' impacts
The conversion of a five-bed house into a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) for nine people in Scarborough, has been refused over the ‘unacceptable’ impact it would have on the area.
Colin Straker’s proposal to turn a five-bed property at 40, Gladstone Street into a seven-bed HMO for nine people has been rejected by North Yorkshire Council.
Residents and planners raised concerns about an overproliferation of HMOs in the area.
If it had been approved, the proposal would have resulted in four HMOs on a 200m stretch of Gladstone Street.
While it would not have contravened the authority’s policy of a 10 per cent restriction on HMO properties within a 100m radius, officers said the scheme was “considered to be unacceptable in principle”.
The Highway Authority recommended refusal of the plan, and the council’s housing regulation team objected to the proposal.
Four objections were also lodged by members of the public.
One resident said the HMO would lead to “harmful amenity impacts including increased activity, deliveries, noise and disturbance at unsociable hours”.
Another said: “The development would impact on the character of the area, leading to a high concentration of HMOs which can lead to a transient population and impact the established residential nature of the neighbourhood.
“There are already a number of HMOs on the street, which has changed the character of the area from a family area.”
According to a planning report, the floor plans were not acceptable as a proposed nine-person HMO.
The authority’s housing team said: “The plans show predominantly self-contained studios which do not meet the current space standards for the number of occupiers.
"Current guidance indicates that studios should have a minimum of 37sqm, which is not achievable based on the plans provided.”
The Highway Authority also objected as there is “no existing vehicular access to the site, with no proposal to alter this arrangement”.
It noted that according to the plans, there would be 24-hour on-site staff, which would lead to “an increase in vehicular parking demand within the local vicinity”.
The proposal was rejected on Friday, July 3, over concerns about impacts on amenity, highway safety, and an overconcentration of HMOs in the area.