AN end-of-terrace house will become a ‘house of multiple occupancy’ for six people after planning chiefs gave a property company’s proposals the green light.
Members of Bury Council’s planning committee approved an application from Orangewood Homes when it met at the town hall on Tuesday night.
The firm’s plans also include the conversion of a rear garage into living accommodation and the erection of a pitched roof.
But they had been met with opposition from residents who claim the scheme is unsuitable for the 
area.
Resident Stephen Lovatt spoke against the application. He said: “Inman Street is a street full of family homes, and number one is an ideal family home, surrounded by five schools and two colleges.
“We don’t want a repeat of when Laburnum House was a house of multiple occupation when there were drug addicts, drunks and thieves.
“We don’t know who is going to be in the house.”
He then claimed a council officer had told him the occupants could be “anyone from paedophiles to yuppies”.
“If there are going to be paedophiles, rapists and murderers moving in we don’t want our children picked on,” he said. “If it’s yuppies they will have cars — that’s six cars — we have problems with parking now, and if they have partners with cars that’s more trouble with parking.”
But Sujashini Sukumaran, of Orangewood Homes, said the firm has sought to address residents concerns.
She highlighted the proximity of Bury town centre and the public transport links — including buses and the Metrolink. 
“We fully expect people to use these links instead of cars,” she said, adding that future occupants were “simply less likely to be car owners, they’re obviously single and we have provided cycle stands at the back for tenants with bikes”.
She said that potential tenants would all be professionals and subject to strict reference checks and the firm’s intention was to operate a high quality premises, compliant with all relevant policies.
David Marno, the council’s head of development told the committee that a house of multiple occupancy of six people or fewer did not need planning permission, and they were essentially deciding whether to give the go-ahead for the garage conversion and new roof.
The committee voted unanimously in favour of the application.