Change of use of dwelling (use class C3) into a home in multiple occupation (use class C4)
LOCAL MEMBER:
COUNCILLOR ELIN WALKER JONES
Link
to relevant background documents
Minutes:
Change of use of a
house (C3 use class) to a house in multiple occupation (C4 use class).
Attention was drawn
to the additional observations.
The Members had visited the site.
(a)
The Planning Manager elaborated on the background to
the application, reminding members that a decision had been
made at the Committee meeting on 26 November to defer the decision in
order to conduct a site visit. It was highlighted that
the information was as submitted at the previous meeting. The members were reminded that Policy TAI 9 of the Joint Local
Development Plan supports the principle of converting existing buildings into
houses in multiple occupation within the development boundaries subject to
meeting four associated criteria.
It was considered that the proposed use was acceptable and
would not impair the area's character and would not cause unacceptable harm to
amenities.
(b)
Exercising his right to speak, the Local Member
noted the following main points:
·
It was a family home - a former Council house and
was unsuitable as a house in multiple occupation
·
Objected based on overdevelopment
·
An intention to create five bedrooms - no lounge,
one small kitchen to prepare food, and two small bathrooms. Created a very
confined situation - why squeeze five people into one house?
·
A number of student houses / accommodation were
half empty around Bangor
·
Anticipated an increase in waste
·
Anticipated parking problems - there was no
specific parking. It would be required to park on the street
·
That approving a third house in multiple occupation
would go beyond the 10% threshold on the street
·
The city must be protected
from approving houses in multiple occupation so that they would not spread
everywhere.
·
The maps attached to the application were not
up-to-date
(c) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application on the grounds of
over-development and lack of parking spaces
(ch) During the ensuing discussion, the following
observations were made by Members:
·
That there were historical warnings from former Councillors
that family homes were converted into houses of multiple occupation in Bangor
·
That statistics showed that student numbers were
falling
·
That houses in multiple occupation / properties to
let were spreading to community centres
·
The parking situation did not reflect the reality
of the situation during the site visit. A suggestion that the situation would
be very different at night or over the weekend. It must be considered that it
would be possible to get five additional cars here
·
That a ward with 'two half', as such, could set a
precedent for similar applications to accumulate in the same half
·
That student housing was quickly spreading across
the city. Accepted that thresholds were important, but it appeared that they
had a negative impact on local residents.
·
That site visits needed to be held at the busiest
times
(d)
In response to a question regarding the
likely impact of refusing the application, contrary to the recommendation, and
the risk of costs for the Council, the Senior Planning Manager highlighted that
the recommendation to approve was firm, that there was good management of the
use of houses in multiple occupation and that a 10% threshold was imposed on a
ward rather than a specific street. He accepted that there were parking
concerns, but he highlighted that the Transportation Unit had not stated an
objection to the application and it would be difficult to testify against the
decision of the Unit. It was explained that if the
decision was to refuse, limiting the reasons for refusal would be useful and it
was suggested further that the Members could possibly consider refusing on the
grounds of over-development and the impact this would have on the house next
door.
(e)
In response to the parking concerns, the Senior
Development Control Officer highlighted that it would be required for the
house, as a family home, to have two parking spaces. By changing a house into a
house in multiple occupation for five adults, the requirement would be 0.5 - 1 car for each bedroom. He emphasised that everyone parked
on both sides of the street as there was insufficient
parking space within the curtilage of the houses. He added that Bangor was a
central location with public services and a good network of footpaths and cycle
tracks. It would be difficult to witness whether the vehicles of this house
would impact the house next door.
(f)
In response to a question regarding the 10% threshold and whether this was consistent for each area,
it was noted that this was different for each area. By setting thresholds, the
intention was to protect the area so that houses in multiple occupation would
not spread. He added that some areas in Bangor had higher thresholds.
(g)
In response to an observation regarding an excess
of student housing, the Planning Manager noted that it was a presumption that it was students who lived in houses in multiple occupation.
These buildings were not limited to students only - other people also used
them.
(h)
The Solicitor reminded everyone that if the
Committee refused the application on the grounds of parking, firm evidence to
contradict what the Transportation Unit has noted would be required. Refusing
on the grounds of threshold would lead to misusing policy. Refusing on the
grounds of the two matters above would put the Council in a situation of being open
to costs.
RESOLVED unanimously to refuse the application on the grounds that it would be an over-development of the house which would have an impact on the amenities of nearby property.
Supporting documents: