Support quality, independent, local journalism…that matters

From just £1 a month you can help fund our work – and use our website without adverts. Become a member today

A bid to convert a Newport home into a HMO has been rejected by councillors over parking pressures.

Grainger Jones had applied for planning permission to convert a three-bedroom property at 28 Brynglas Road into a HMO (house in multiple occupation) for five people.

His planning agent argued the property was in “a sustainable location… within walking distance of a bus route with regular services”.

But members of the city council’s planning committee disputed claims that space for up to six extra vehicles could be accommodated in an area where neighbours called parking “overstretched” and “stressful”.

HMOs are typically properties for single, unrelated adults who have their own private bedrooms but share other communal areas such as kitchens or bathrooms.

In this case, a downstairs living room would be turned into a bedroom, and a larger bedroom upstairs would be divided into two, senior planning officer Joanne Davidson told Newport City Council’s planning committee.

The property is currently vacant and undergoing renovation works, and there are no other licensed HMOs within a 50-metre radius, she added.

Ms Davidson said the HMO, if approved, would generate additional parking demand of six spaces, but explained a parking survey conducted for the applicant showed on-street parking “is available”.

She noted a council highways officer had objected to the application, but planners still recommended the HMO conversion be approved.

Planning officers considered Brynglas Road to be “a highly-sustainable location within close proximity to shops and services [and] with good transport links – and we know this must be given substantial weight”, Ms Davidson added.

Shaftesbury ward councillor Paul Cockeram, speaking in opposition to the plans, told the committee parking was a “real issue” in the area, and said photographs showing spaces during the mornings were open to “misinterpretation”.

He said “10am is not the same as 5pm… or 6pm when you cannot park anywhere near there”.

Noting 39 neighbour objections to the application, Cllr Cockeram called HMOs a “recipe for disaster” and said Brynglas Road was “not an appropriate place to do it”.

He added he was “not naive to the problems of housing at the moment”, but said he was concerned about “the way we are looking at HMOs as the panacea to sort all our housing problems out”.

Several committee members commented on parking pressures, including Cllr Trevor Watkins, who said photographs shown during the meeting gave a “false impression of the amount of parking which is available”.

Cllr Tim Harvey added he was “concerned about parking” and called the photographs “misleading”.

Ms Davidson said there was “no denying there’s high parking stress” in the area, but added the applicant’s parking survey was conducted in line with the council’s methodology.

But Cllr William Routley, referring to the highways officer’s objection, said the application “doesn’t meet parking requirements, and that’s a ground for refusal”.

The committee rejected the officers’ recommendation, and went on to vote unanimously to refuse planning permission over parking concerns.