Plans to increase the capacity of a house in multiple occupation (HMO) on the outskirts of Wrexham town centre have been rejected because of concerns over parking and litter.
An application was entered in May to increase the amount of residents able to live at a property on Beechley Road in Hightown from six to eight.
It came as owner Andrew Shield said he wanted to allow couples to live in two of the rooms to meet the demand for accommodation in the area.
The scheme was given the backing of Wrexham Council’s chief planning officer ahead of a meeting on Monday to decide the plans.
However, members of the local authority’s planning committee refused permission after being told about the lack of parking and issues with overspilling bins on the street, which is already home to several HMOs.
Speaking at Wrexham’s Guildhall, local councillor Graham Rogers said: “The proposed development would result in an over-concentration to the detriment of the social fabric of the area.
“Beechley Road currently has six HMOs within a 50-metre radius, and I consider the likelihood that the proposed suggestion to increase from six to eight occupants will result in an increase in parking demands.
“For those reasons I am requesting that the approval be refused for the proposed development, which does not make adequate provision for the parking of vehicles.
“The current HMO on Beechley Road carries an increase in the amount of refuse with bins being overused, resulting in litter over spilling onto the footpaths and carriageway. On most weekends I’m having to clear litter with the aid of the community payback team.”
Members of the Beechley Road Residents’ Association also wrote to planning committee members to highlight issues with noise from the HMO properties.
It came after they previously campaigned against a separate bedsit application on the same street.
The latest scheme was recommended for approval by the council’s chief planning officer, who said it was unlikely to lead to an increased demand for parking spaces.
In his report Lawrence Isted said: “I have considered the concerns of the residents in regard to parking and noise nuisance.
“With regard to parking, I appreciate that there are a significant number of vehicles that park on the carriageway with no provision for parking on site.
“Highways have no objections to the proposed development on the grounds that the proposed development is unlikely to result in parking demand compared with its current residential use.
“Noise nuisance can be addressed by public protection.”
Despite his recommendation, councillors chose to refuse permission because of the impact on parking with 15 votes against the plans and two abstentions.
By Liam Randall