Controversial plans for a new HMO in Cwmfelinfach have been approved by Caerphilly councillors.

Housing organisation D2 Propco had applied to convert its property at 26 Maindee Road into a HMO for three people.

HMOs (houses in multiple occupation) are typically properties for between three and six single, unrelated adults who have their own private bedrooms but share other communal areas.

Ynysddu ward councillor Janine Reed told Caerphilly County Borough Council’s planning committee about a string of alleged incidents she claimed “brings into question D2 Propco’s ability to manage” the property.

Reading out a statement from neighbour Peter Sargeant, she said there were concerns locally about noise, antisocial behaviour and parking pressures.

The site was also “not an appropriate location for a HMO, especially as there are two similar properties nearby”, according to Mr Sargeant.

Planning agent James Driscoll defended D2 Propco’s record, telling the committee the firm houses more than 600 people in around 150 temporary accommodation units in Wales.

He said the Cwmfelinfach property had been “identified for use as temporary accommodation for single adults within Caerphilly County Borough”.

The firm has a “strict house rules structure”, a round-the-clock on-call system for neighbours, and manages its properties “very diligently”, he added.

Mr Driscoll also said that type of accommodation would be “far more appropriate than bed and breakfasts or hotels, and gives the tenant a better chance of maintaining their placement… and a greater chance of a successful move onto their own accommodation in the future”.

Cllr Shane Williams, a committee member, urged compassion and said it was “quite alarming” to hear questions about HMO tenants’ backgrounds.

“Somebody could privately rent a house [or] buy a house next door to anyone, and you might not know their background,” he said. “I think that inbuilt prejudice against people looking for homes is absolutely scandalous. I keep hearing it in these meetings.

“We are drumming up prejudice and hatred against people who are looking to live normal lives.”

But Cllr Nigel Dix said HMOs “are always going to be controversial”.

“I wouldn’t want one next to me,” he said. “They can be problematic and they are problematic in certain places.”

He told colleagues the planning rules for such properties were “unfit… without proper consultations for communities to feel safe about HMOs getting put next to them”.

Senior planning officer Carwyn Powell said antisocial behaviour was “not an inherent problem with HMOs” as a property type generally.

The committee chairman, Cllr Roy Saralis, said an environmental health officer had suggested there were “very low numbers of complaints” linked to approved HMOs.

“We can exaggerate these things without evidence,” he warned.

The committee granted planning permission, subject to conditions, by a majority vote.

Following the meeting, Cllr Reed defended the local concerns in this case, saying they were “not expressing hostility toward vulnerable people needing housing”.

“They were expressing genuine worry about the growing number of HMOs being placed into small communities already facing parking problems, pressure on local services and concerns about antisocial behaviour,” she said.

“In fact, councillors at the meeting themselves commented on the large number of HMO applications now regularly coming before committee. Surely that reflects growing concern across the borough, not prejudice.”