42-bed HMO conversion at 203 - 207 Church Road, Redfield, Bristol

“Proposed change of use and extension of existing building to create a scheme of 9 x HMO Cluster Units (42 beds) together with alterations to the south (Church Road) ground floor street elevation.”

“The above application was determined by the Planning Inspectorate, and is the first decision for the residential proposals at the site (given that the previous applications were withdrawn). The report from the Planning Inspectorate is extremely short, especially given the contentious nature of the proposal, and focuses only on Highways Matters, which ultimately led to the refusal of the application/dismissal of the appeal.”

“The proposal would exacerbate demand for on-street parking in an area of existing excessive parking pressure, such that the likely additional parking demand generated cannot be accommodated on surrounding streets, and would result in dangerous/illegal parking to the detriment of highway safety.”

“The proposed development would provide for a sustainably-located mixed-use development, of commercial uses comprising a replacement pub, and residential development comprising a HMO development across 9 cluster flats. Whilst the extent of commercial floorspace would be reduced when compared with existing, this would unlock the potential for a more efficient use of the existing buildings and land.”

“The site is located in an area that experiences severe pressure for on-street parking, with a significant proportion of the high number of public objections received raising this as a concern. BCC Highways Officers are satisfied that the proposed on-site parking arrangements are acceptable, and adequately mitigate any impact in relation to on-street parking and associated highway safety considerations.”

“Consultation was undertaken via site and press notices, along with letters sent to surrounding properties. 439 written responses were received in response to public consultation (5 in support, 2 neutral, and the remainder 432 raising objection), raising concerns that can be summarised as follows:”

“Amendments were made during the course of the application in relation to parking layout and quantum (cars and bicycles) as well as design and layout changes to the Church Road frontage and commercial space layout. A public re-consultation exercise was undertaken, with 99 written responses received. The responses received echoed many of the points set out above.”

“Additionally, the proposed HMO scheme fails to provide parking for its residents which could conceivably number 84 people across 42 beds, and this would lead to increased traffic and parking problems in the local area, which would not comply with Policy DM2.”

“Proposals involving the loss of community facilities land or buildings will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that the loss of the existing community use would not create, or add to, a shortfall in the provision or quality of such uses within the locality or, where the use has ceased, that there is no need or demand for any other suitable community facility that is willing or able to make use of the building(s) or land" The Landrose proposal clearly does create the…”

“Committee members made the following comments: • Members referred to the recently reported quarterly figures on affordable housing delivery, said to be the highest for 20 years, and emphasised the continuing need for housing of all kinds in the city, including HMOs and co-living.”

“Members considered the scheme a good one in a sustainable location, welcoming the environmental measures and the parking arrangements. • Members remained unconvinced that the parking issue had been adequately resolved, noting the shortfall against the 15-space figure. • Members expressed sympathy for local residents who had campaigned for a community use, but noted that no such scheme had come forward and that the application before the Committee was policy-compliant.”