PLANNING permission has been granted for a Bridgend town property to be used as a house in multiple occupation despite objections from some local residents and councillors.
The application for a change of use at a property in Grove Gardens, Bridgend was granted by members of the council’s planning committee at a meeting in May 2025.
It will allow for a former four bedroom house, that has been altered internally, to be used as a 6-bedroom house in multiple occupation.
Officers at the meeting said the property had already been converted to a HMO in June of 2023, with the application looking for retrospective planning permission.
However, a report given to members said that fifteen letters of objection were received over the plans, from residents who live on the neighbouring Grove Road and St Marie Street.
These objections came over a feared a loss of privacy, loss of family housing in the area, increased pressure on parking in the surrounding streets as well as potential increases in anti-social behaviour.
Bridgend Town Council also objected to the plans on the grounds of an over intensification of HMOs in the area, as well as concerns over parking, traffic and highway safety.
Some members at the meeting echoed the worries about parking, along with issues over access to the property which comes through a narrow and privately owned lane off Grove Road and Ewenny Road.
The report said the owners of the lane had indicated that they would not allow residents of the HMO to use it, though planning officers said that any dispute over this would ultimately be a civil matter.
When it came to the number of HMO’s in the area, they added that approval of the site would not lead to more than 10% of all residential properties within a 50m radius being HMO’s which was within policy limits.
They also said there was “no compelling evidence” to suggest the site would result in increased levels of crime or fear of crime around the site, and recommended the plans for approval.
Following lengthy discussions Councillor Jonathan Pratt of Newton suggested deferring the decision over the plans while more details on parking and access at the site were sought.
This suggestion was later rejected by a vote of 10 members to six, with the full application later approved by 12 votes to four.
