Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused, against officer recommendation, on the grounds of overdevelopment, concerns about parking and the requirement to reverse out onto the main road. 

            The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 18 April 2016.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.

            The officer detailed the background to the application and explained that the proposal was to convert a former dwelling into a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) with six bedrooms with en-suite bathrooms and three bedrooms with a shared bathroom.  Two parking spaces were on the existing driveway and an additional access point was proposed with a further two parking spaces.  Both accesses would require reversing onto the High Street as there was insufficient space to turn within the site; Highways officers had not raised any issues with this.  A bus stop was also situated outside the property.  The main issues related to intensification of the residential use and the impacts relating to noise, disturbance, parking and access issues.  There were no parking standards for a HMO and therefore four spaces was deemed appropriate because of the proximity to local facilities and a bus stop with services directly to Chester and into Flintshire towns; a cycle store was also to be included in the site.  There were no windows in the property which directly overlooked the school playing fields or the adjacent residential properties in either the existing dwelling or the proposed extensions.

            Mr. J. Morgan spoke against the application.  He highlighted a number of issues which included that even though it had been indicated that the residents would be working professionals, this could change without notice and the building could be occupied by more vulnerable groups of people which could create child protection issues with the windows overlooking the school premises.  He felt that the provision of only four parking spaces for nine bedrooms was a problem as there was no-where for all of the residents to park if they all had a vehicle and would create extra traffic on an already busy road.  The school used the local church regularly and because there was no pedestrian crossing in the area, any additional traffic could increase a danger for those crossing the road.               

            Councillor Richard Lloyd proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He felt that the site visit had allowed the Committee to see the location of the site, which was significant.  It was close to the primary school, church and doctor’s surgery and the property, which had not been a police station since the 1950s, had been empty for the past couple of years.  He did not feel that the change of use to a nine bedroom house was a good use of the site and expressed significant concern about the requirement to reverse out of the site on the High Street.  He commented on the Design and Access Statement and on the issue of parking felt that four spaces for nine rooms was insufficient particularly as there was no convenient on or off-road parking in the area for the residents of this property or their visitors.  Councillor Lloyd also expressed significant concern about the waste and recycling collections and said that nine extra bins on the pavement would make it impossible for pedestrians to pass.  He shared Mr. Morgan’s concerns about the close proximity of the site to the school and said that the application should be refused as it was not in keeping with the area, both accesses were dangerous, parking on the road would impact on the traffic flow and the rubbish collections would block the pavement. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Veronica Gay, spoke of attractions in Broughton that was attracting people to the area and of River Lane Industrial Estate which the traffic had to exit onto Boundary Lane and then travel up the High Street to the A55.  She felt that to include another access near to the bus stop was unreasonable and added that there was no safe place to cross the road safely, particularly for the school children who visited the church on a regular basis.  She felt that the second proposed vehicular access was below highways level and even though conditions had been put in place to lower the walls either side of the access, there were still concerns about the front of the dwelling being in line with the access.  She did not believe that a nine bed HMO was in keeping with the area and sought clarification on the tenant profile of ‘working professionals’.  Councillor Gay expressed concern that the pavement was too narrow for the number of waste bins that would be put out by the residents and asked that a condition be included, if the application was approved, for the bins to remain within the curtilage of the site at all times.  She suggested that the second access be removed from the proposal and queried why there was parking on the site if there was a bus stop outside the dwelling.  Councillor Gay also asked what arrangements were to be put in place for the construction vehicles during the development of the site.  She added that there had been 15 reported accidents on the road between Boundary Lane and Park Avenue. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell felt that the proposal would be an overdevelopment of the site and queried the requirement for shared bathrooms, kitchen and living accommodation.  The number of car parking did not comply with the Council’s standards of 1.5 spaces per dwelling and he expressed significant concern about the requirement for vehicles to reverse out of both accesses onto the high street.  He said that Saltney was a ribbon development and this proposal would not assist with the significant traffic problems that were already experienced in the area.  He added that a smaller development on the site would be more acceptable. 

            Councillor Carol Ellis felt that it was important to consider local knowledge in the determination of the application and reiterated the concerns of other Members about the amount of traffic already in the area, the requirement for shared bathrooms and kitchens and the need for vehicles to reverse out on to the street.  She also commented on the possible future use of the property by vulnerable users and of the close proximity of the site to the school. 

            Councillor Richard Jones spoke of previous applications that had been refused in the past because they did not have a turning area within the site.  He expressed significant concern about vehicles reversing out onto the main road and of the number of extra bins that would be put out on the pavement one day each week.  He did not feel that the description of the application was what would be developed if the application was approved. 

            The Senior Engineer – Highways Development Control confirmed that Highways had no objections to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions and that even though there were no parking standards for a HMO, each proposal should be considered on its own merits.  She said that it was not always a necessity to have a turning area within the site and on the issue of the accident history in the area, indicated there had been five recorded accidents in the last five years.  She added that given the location and the public transport availability in the area, Highways supported the application. 

            In summing up, Councillor Lloyd reiterated his concerns about the small number of parking spaces and the requirement to reverse out on to the main road which he felt was dangerous.  Any parking on the road would increase the traffic problems in the area and the kerbside collections would block the pavement and cause a danger for pedestrians.  He added that the proposal was an overdevelopment of the site.       

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused, against officer recommendation, on the grounds of overdevelopment, concerns about parking and the requirement to reverse out onto the main road.