A LANDLORD in Newport was forced to apply for retrospective planning permission after he incorrectly used his new property as a HMO (house in multiple occupation).

Planning documents show landlord Faisal Taj bought the home, at 8 Phillip Street, last year.

"He made an application for a licence under the Housing Act 2004, which has been granted," chartered town planning consultant Gwilym Powys Jones told Newport City Council.

"He was under the mistaken impression that a licence enabled him to use the property as a HMO."

HMOs are typically properties where individual adults rent private bedrooms and share communal spaces such as kitchens. They are subject to different planning requirements and many councils impose restrictions on how many HMOs can be located in a certain area.

Council planners have now given the "mistaken" landlord their approval for the Phillip Street property to be used as a HMO for four people.

"The subject property was previously laid out over two floors, with the ground floor comprising a lounge, dining room, kitchen, bathroom and the first floor comprising three bedrooms," according to planning documents. "The proposed layout would see the existing siting room converted to an additional bedroom."

Planners noted there were no other HMOs within 50 metres of the property.

In some parts of Newport, HMOs can make up no more than 10 per cent of the housing stock, while in other areas the limit is 15 per cent.

The creation of the HMO in Phillip Street would "comfortably fall within both permitted thresholds," the planners said. 

"Therefore, it is not considered that the proposed change of use to a four bedroom house in multiple occupation would result in a demonstrable impact on the character of the area or the amenity of neighbouring occupiers," they added.

Mr Powys Jones described the application as a "modest proposal for a 4 bed HMO" which he said "can be carried out without harming the character of the property or reduce the amenity of neighbouring occupiers".

Newport council consulted neighbours living at 82 properties within a 50 metre radius of the Phillip Street home, but received no responses either supporting or obejctions to the application.