Agenda item

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

 

 

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.