Yeovil HMO plan refused for third time over parking concerns

Proposals were submitted on July 30 to convert 23 Alexandra Road into an eight-bedroom HMO for a maximum of eight people, alongside a rear extension, dormer and storage for bins, recycling and bicycles.

Somerset Council planning officers issued the refusal on October 19, amid 33 objections from neighbouring residents.

It was the latest attempt to secure HMO use at the property, following Somerset Council's refusal of an earlier 13-person scheme, which was rejected on July 6.

That proposal also contained eight bedrooms but would have accommodated up to 13 people. The scheme faced 35 letters of objection from nearby residents. The council rejected it over the increased intensity of the use and its potential effect on neighbours, as well as insufficient parking.

Another previous planning application was made back in September 2025, for loft alterations to allow an additional storey to be built on the house to create six en-suite bedrooms.

Although this application didn't request the property to be used as an HMO, the plans were withdrawn after objections from Yeovil Town Council and 20 neighbouring residents, who raised concerns that a future HMO application would be made if the changes were approved.

The applicants argued the house could include four off-street parking spaces, but planning officers and locals questioned how practical this would be (Image: Google Maps / Somerset Council planning portal)

Under the latest rejected scheme, which was turned down on October 19, all double-occupancy rooms were removed, bringing the maximum number of residents down from 13 to eight.

Four off-street parking spaces were proposed, with two in the former garage and another two on the driveway, together with a secure 12-space cycle store.

The applicant, Hayhurst Estates Ltd, argued the rethink represented a significant reduction in the intensity of the proposed use and said the development would provide smaller, lower-cost accommodation for younger adults, lower-income households and other people looking for shared accommodation.

But the revised application attracted 33 letters of objection, with parking emerging as a repeated concern alongside traffic, pedestrian safety, refuse, and the effect of another HMO on the character of the neighbourhood.

One resident said the street was "already extremely busy" and argued that adding another eight occupants would cause "further chaos".

Another objector, who said they had lived on the road for decades, told the council parking had become "extremely difficult", particularly during evenings and weekends.

A further resident described the proposal as an "over-intensive use of a Victorian family home", while another questioned the repeated applications at the site, saying: "Let's not have a fourth go, eh?"

Several objectors argued the proposed parking arrangement would not work effectively in practice because cars would have to be parked behind one another.

Others highlighted school buses and children using the road, while concerns were also raised about emergency vehicle access, extra refuse, old drainage infrastructure and the cumulative number of HMOs in the wider area.

Some residents also argued that the property should remain a conventional family home and expressed frustration that another scheme had been submitted after the previous refusal.

Yeovil Town Council also objected, citing overdevelopment, inadequate parking, the effect on residents' quality of life and concerns relating to the area's controls on HMOs.

The controversial application attracted 33 objection letters from local residents on the council's planning portal (Image: Google Maps / Somerset Council planning portal)

The applicant sought to counter many of those concerns in its planning statement.

It argued that four off-road spaces represented a reasonable level of provision for eight occupants in an accessible part of Yeovil, and that typical HMO residents were likely to have lower levels of car ownership.

However, Somerset Council's highways team remained unconvinced. It said the four spaces were arranged in a way which could require vehicles to be moved whenever another resident wanted to get in or out.

With occupants likely to have different travel patterns, highways officers were not satisfied the arrangement would work effectively. Highways officers concluded there was a "realistic prospect" of residents and visitors parking on the road instead, adding further pressure to the surrounding area.

Despite the objections, planners did not agree with every issue raised by residents. The council considered the reduction from 13 to eight occupants to be significant and found there was not enough evidence to justify refusing the latest proposal because of noise or disturbance to neighbours.

The planning officer also concluded that an HMO was acceptable in principle at the location, and that the development "would not result in a harmful concentration of HMOs in the locality".

Ultimately, however, parking proved the stumbling block for developers for a second time.

The officer's report concluded: "The proposal has failed to demonstrate that adequate and functional parking provision can be provided to serve the proposed use without resulting in unacceptable impacts on highway safety and existing parking conditions."