AN EXTENSION already rejected by the council and a government inspector over parking fears has again been recommended for approval by planning officers when councillors meet next week.

The plan, to allow an extension to a house of multiple occupation (HMO) in Bozward Street in St John’s, was rejected by Worcester City Council’s planning committee and the government’s planning inspectorate last year over parking and congestion fears.

But the city council’s planning officers have recommended the plan, which was put forward again in January, should be approved when the council’s planning committee meets next Thursday (June 25).

Having had the plan rejected by the council and dismissed on appeal by the government planning inspectorate, developer Bob Panesar appealed to the council for a ‘lawful development certificate’ for the extensions to allow the home to be converted from a five to a six-bed HMO, which was approved, before then resubmitting the planning application in May.

The plan was rejected by councillors in February last year after it was called in by Councillor Richard Udall, who represents St John’s, over the impact it would potentially have on neighbours and parking in the street.

There were concerns that creating more rooms in the HMO would make parking in the already-congested Bozward Street and surrounding streets worse.

The council’s planning committee rejected the plan, despite the council’s planning department recommending it should be approved, and then refused it again a month later.

Mr Panesar appealed to the government’s planning inspectorate to reverse the decision but was unsuccessful.

Highways bosses at Worcestershire County Council have raised no objections to any of the plans and have again said they have no issues with the plan.

The report published by inspector JM Tweddle in July said allowing the extra room in the HMO would make parking worse on the street and threw out the appeal.

The report said: “It is clear that the current off-street parking arrangement is deficient and cannot contribute towards the required provision.

“The proposal would increase the pressure for on-street parking and exacerbate the inconvenience faced by local residents when trying to find a parking space on the street.

“The increased demand may also lead to indiscriminate parking that could block driveways and further add to the parking difficulties faced by residents.”