Agenda item

That planning permission be refused, against officer recommendation, on the grounds of being out of keeping with the area; creation of traffic problems; creation of access issues for the existing nearby supported living accommodation; and the impact on residential amenity. 

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 10^th October 2016.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. 

                        The application was made in retrospect for the change of use of a 6 bedroom dwelling to a 7 bedroom house of multiple occupation.

                        Mr Cox spoke against the application on behalf of the residents of The Brackens.  He commented on the following: The Brackens was quiet cul de sac; the property had multiple inhabitants and had been rented for the past 4 years without permission; insufficient parking spaces, including when friends and family visited, and the removal of a wall to provide additional parking would still not be sufficient; supported living accommodation next door but one to the proposed site which emergency vehicles struggled to gain access to; newly built flats and apartments within 250 metres; each room was rented out to young adults and teenagers which resulted in trouble in the area.

                        Councillor Hampson proposed refusal of the application which was against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He said this was not a suitable area for a house of multiple occupation, explaining that the access was poor and there was insufficient parking.  On the same estate there were two blocks of 1 and 2 bedroom flats which had vacancies and based on that, he felt this application was unnecessary.  There had been no permission for the dwelling of multiple occupancy over the last 4 years.  There were no fire doors installed at the property and the Police had been called to incidents on a number of occasions.  The supported living accommodation on The Brackens was there due to it being a quiet area however this was no longer the case because of this property.  Councillor Dolphin said he was substituting for Councillor Phillips but asked that the views of Councillor Phillips in supporting refusal of the application be noted on a human and social conscience level.   The Solicitor advised that the committee should consider planning land use and issues, and not human and personal levels.

                        Councillor Peers commented on the useful site visit that had taken place.  The road was a quiet one and he had concerns on the impact on amenity due to the residential area and the supported living accommodation on that road.  He accepted that people needed to live somewhere but said that needed to be considered carefully; he felt the impact on amenity outweighed that need.

                        Councillor Ellis supported the views of Councillor Hampson in an area of which the houses were built as family homes.  She also raised concerns on the parking facilities, highlighting the comment from the Head of Assets and Transportation in the report which said there was an issue with parked cars obstructing the highway.  She expressed her concern on the access for emergency vehicles attending the supported living accommodation and concluded that the type of building the property had been turned into was not suitable for the area.

                        Councillor Bithell said the application was for residential accommodation in a residential area.  It was a large property which in previous years would have housed a large family.  This was no longer the case and an alternative use needed to be sought for a property of such a size.  Whilst he sympathised with the views of the Members who spoke against the application, he felt a lot of the comments had been made based on assumptions.  He also felt that if the application was refused then the applicant could go to appeal which he felt would be lost based on the reasons given, along with potential costs awarded against the authority.

                        Councillor Butler concurred with Councillor Bithell that whilst local Members should be listened to and their views carefully considered, there were no planning grounds on which the application could be refused.  This was also the view of Councillors Dunbar and Lloyd who said they had similar homes of multiple occupancy in their wards. 

Councillors Roberts and Roney also agreed that there were no planning grounds on which the application could be refused and felt that any appeal would be lost.

                        Councillor McGuill queried whether the application was being submitted retrospectively was due to the forthcoming legislation on Rent Smart Wales.  The Solicitor advised that legislation not related to planning was not relevant and was not material to the decision of Members.

                        Councillor Thomas commented that it was difficult to manoeuvre on the road at the recent site visit and felt that taking down walls and/or hedges to provide additional parking changed the character of the estate.

                        The Officer commented that it was a residential application in a residential area.  The fact that there were nearby flats and apartments was not a consideration for Members in determining this application.  There was the space for additional parking to be provided as cited in the report.  On claims of anti-social behaviour raised, this was covered by alternative legislation by other organisations.  In relation to the character of the building, the appearance of the dwelling was in keeping with the area.

                        The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Controlsaid there were no current parking standards on houses of multiple occupancy but the authority would seek to include a condition to maximise the parking on the site.  Access road was more than adequate for service and emergency vehicles so based on highways grounds, there were no reasons to refuse the application.

                        The Planning Strategy Manager asked Members to consider what the planning harm was over and above the existing residential use that existed there.  The property could sell on the open market and Members would have no control over the occupancy or the number of vehicles at that property. 

                        Councillor Hampson summed up and cited his reasons for moving refusal of the application as: it was out of keeping with the area; it would create traffic problems; it would create access issues for the existing nearby supported living accommodation; and the impact on residential amenity.

            On being put to the vote, refusal of the application was carried, against officer recommendation.

            RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused, against officer recommendation, on the grounds of being out of keeping with the area; creation of traffic problems; creation of access issues for the existing nearby supported living accommodation; and the impact on residential amenity.