Plans for 23-bed HMO knocked back by Edinburgh City Council over anti-social behaviour fears

Edinburgh councillors have rejected plans for a new HMO development after dozens of locals objected amid concerns that it would increase antisocial behaviour.

The plans concerned a combined property comprising 31 and 33 Spring Gardens in Abbeyhill. They sought to separate the property into a dwelling and a HMO. The latter would eventually be connected to an adjacent, existing HMO, upping the bed count to 23 – an increase of six from the existing 17-bedroom property.

Locals reacted with significant pushback, citing worries more HMO tenants would intensify antisocial incidents and police callouts.

The plans received 52 objections following an initial neighbour notification period, with an additional 29 coming in the wake of a second period.

One public objection from an owner-occupier on Spring Gardens claimed: “The expansion of an existing HMO property, which already has such a deleterious impact on residential amenity will certainly have a further significant and material impact on residential amenity.”

However an officer report stated the proposals were in line with council policy and there were “no compelling material considerations for not approving them”.

The matter was brought before the Development Management Sub-Committee on Wednesday, October 21 where councillors debated the fate of the HMO.

Officer Graham Fraser, advocating to grant the application, claimed residents’ worries about the potential behaviour of HMO tenants was “not relevant” to consideration of the application.

He said: “We can’t control human behaviour. What people consider ‘antisocial’ – it’s not linear across people. Some people might consider drinking in the backyard as antisocial. We’re not here to try and control that. We can’t predict it.”

Councillor Staniforth pointed out how the committee considers the likely behaviour of short term let occupants and customers for certain types of retail. He added: “I wonder why in this instance, potential behaviour of those who might occupy an HMO has not been considered at all.”

Officer Fraser claimed HMOs can have a positive or negative impact on the community but these changes “are not matters for planning authority”.

Councillor David Key supported this notion, adding: “I think there is a big difference between perception and reality. We don’t know what will happen if we increase this by six rooms. I don’t see how increasing by six will have any affect on the amenity of anybody.”

Other councillors echoed the concerns of the objectors. Councillor Chas Booth worried more HMO tenants might lead to “intensification” and impact the amenity of neighbours.

Councillors voted five against four to refuse the application.

Convener Hal Osler, who voted against the plans, said: “It is of concern to local individuals. The increased usage of one area has tipped it over a balance.”