Neighbours who claimed a new HMO in their street would be “completely unreasonable” and have a “detrimental effect on other properties” have successfully convinced Newport City Council to reject planning permission for the project.

Applicant Bowen Investments Ltd had proposed converting 20 Usk Street from a four-bedroom home to a seven-bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO).

HMOs are typically properties where single, unrelated adults have their own private bedrooms but share other communal areas such as kitchens, bathrooms or living rooms.

In this case, a planning statement, written by agents LRJ Planning on behalf of the applicant, said the Usk Street property is in a “sustainable location” with “a raft of amenities” nearby.

But dozens of neighbours objected to the plans, mainly over fears of more parking pressure, “antisocial issues”, the number of HMOs already in the area, and the “loss of a much-needed family property”.

Two councillors who represent the St Julians ward also raised concerns about the planned HMO.

Cllr Paul Bright said he feared the “breakdown of the cohesion of the community” and noted flooding and parking concerns.

Cllr Carmel Townsend said St Julians “seems to get more than its fair share” of HMO applications, and said roads like Usk Street “are simply not suitable for seven people to be accommodated in a small house”.

“These multiple occupancy houses are forced on a settled community and residents are just expected to put up with whatever developers want to do,” added Cllr Townsend.

City council planning officers accepted some of the issues raised by objectors but dismissed others.

They said it “cannot be assumed that all HMOs result in issues surrounding anti-social behaviour and disorder, or an alteration to the character of an existing area”.

The number of HMOs in the neighbourhood would remain slightly below the 10 per cent threshold, the planners added.

But they accepted an increase from a four-bedroom to seven-bedroom property represented a “significant intensification” of the building, leading to an “adverse impact” on character” of a “predominantly residential area”.

The council planning officers did not accept residents’ existing parking “frustrations” – while “genuine” – would be enough of a reason to reject the HMO application.

Flood risk assessments, however, did pose a problem, with the proposed HMO failing certain hypothetical tests. In the event of the most serious climate-change related flooding event, the HMO could be hit by water 1.2 metres high, the planners judged.

These issues represent “significant adverse” effects due to “the presence of ground-floor bedrooms, with no provision of acceptable first-floor refuge for residents and their personal possessions”, they added.