Councillors told they 'might be on Mars' after approving HMO scheme

The decision on the scheme for 48 Park Road in Freemantle sparked further outcries from residents in the public gallery, including a shout of: 'you might as well be on Mars'. The application from Naila Strong Rock Ltd sought permission to convert the property into a nine-bedroom HMO and build single-storey side and rear extensions. Members of Southampton City Council's planning and rights of way panel heard the extensions could be built under permitted development rights but were included in the application because they were needed to facilitate the HMO use. The scheme attracted eight objections from residents, who raised concerns about the loss of a family home, increased parking pressure and additional noise and disturbance to neighbours' residential amenity. Planning officers recommended the application for approval, with no objection raised from HMO licensing. Colin Brown, speaking on behalf of Park Road resident Carole Ann Foley, said: 'This is a strong community which has successfully absorbed significant increases in population. 'By its nature a nine-bed HMO will create disturbance from anti-social work patterns and issues associated with high-density housing.' Fellow resident Simon Brown said the existing parking problems in the area would be made worse by the addition of the large HMO. Agent John Asiamah, speaking on behalf of the applicant, said the principle of the HMO scheme was acceptable in council planning policy. Mr Asiamah said: 'Importantly, 48 Park Road is a detached house on a relatively spacious plot and well separated from the neighbouring properties.' He said the scheme provided three off-street parking spaces, which is the maximum for a nine-person HMO in the 'highly accessible' location. Green Party Freemantle councillor Sam Pryce said the nine-bed proposal was far too large for the site and it threatened to destabilise the community balance. Cllr Pryce said: 'I'm not opposed to HMOs in principle. The important question to me is if the HMO is in the right location. 'A family home needs access to schools, shops and open space, which this property has. HMOs on the other hand primarily need access to jobs and open spaces. This location fits far better as the family home it exists as than it would as a HMO. 'To replace this optimally located family home with a nine-bedroom HMO would, in my opinion, be a failure of urban planning.' Panel member Beccy Greenhalgh said: 'Good, decent people are entitled to good, decent living standards and that's not achieved by cramming nine people into a property of this size. 'It is not fair on them. Utter misery caused by the greed of landlords.' Written objections submitted by residents claimed the HMO would 'encourage the wrong type of people to the area', could be used for drug production and might accommodate 'illegal immigrants'. Cllr Greenhalgh said: 'If I object to this though, I want to be absolutely clear that I am not swayed by the seven statements in this document because I found they were literally repeating each other, clearly using the same rhetoric. 'It was distressingly racist to read references to 'the wrong type of people'. 'That's really offensive. 'The people that live in HMOs are people that are struggling to afford a decent home and we shouldn't be having these negative attitudes about them. 'It's the landlords that are causing that, not those people.' Freemantle councillor and panel member Dave Shields said he was concerned the HMO would tilt the balance away from an area for family homes. Cllr Shields said: 'We are turning a neighbourhood that hasn't quite got to the extent of ghettoisation we have seen in some of our wards but it is edging in that direction and that is something that I think is quite unsettling for residents.' Panel chairman Sarah Wood said she understood the HMO rules but felt the nature of the conversion would make it impossible to revert back to a family home. The application was granted planning permission by three votes to two, with one abstention at the meeting on Tuesday, September 1.