Full application for the change of use of an existing domestic dwelling into a house in multiple occupancy.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Jason Humphreys
Minutes:
Full
application for the change of use of an existing residential dwelling into a
house in multiple occupation.
(a)
The Planning Manager elaborated on the background
of the application, and noted that the site was located within the development
boundary of the town of Porthmadog. It was explained that the proposal,
according to the submitted plans, did not change the existing internal layout
of the building or intended to make any external changes to the building.
It was noted that policy CH14 of the GUDP approved
proposals to change the use of the houses in this respect unless the
development would not create an over-provision of this type of accommodation in
a specific street or area where the cumulative impact has a negative impact on
the social and environmental character of the street or area, or is likely to
do so. It is not believed that another building in the close vicinity is being
used as a house in multiple occupation and therefore, it is not believed that
it would lead to an unacceptable cumulative impact within this specific area.
The proposal was acceptable in principle.
It was noted that objections had been received to
the application as a result of the public consultation with concern highlighted
in terms of the harmful impact of the proposed use (where it was alleged that
it had already commenced) on the nearby residential amenities in comparison with
the current legal use of the site. Given the current legal use of the property
as a five-bedroom residential property and the amenity impacts that could arise
from that use, it is not considered that there would be a significant change to
the amenities of the neighbourhood from approving the development in question.
The development complied with the GUDP for the
reasons noted in the report.
(b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, an
objector noted the following main points:
·
That the use of the house as a house in multiple
occupation had commenced for a year;
·
That anti-social behaviour in front of the house
caused concern to her and her family;
·
That parking space was narrow near the site with
more cars parking in front of the house leading to arguments;
·
That the house was not open to local people as
accommodation, as it should be;
·
That the proposal led to the loss of a family home.
(c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s
representative noted the following main points:
·
That she was unaware that there was anti-social
behaviour in front of the house and that she could not envisage the
professionals who lived in the house behaving like this;
·
In terms of parking, no resident owned a car and
they did not intend to own a car either;
·
That it was accommodation for dementia specialist
nurses who worked in the Pines Residential Home in Cricieth;
·
That the proposal
enabled the Residential Home to provide care for local people.
(ch) The local
member (not a member of this Planning Committee) made the following main
points:
·
That he was aware and appreciated the need for
accommodation for nurses;
·
That the houses in multiple occupation licensing
system could not deal with all matters deriving from the development;
·
That there were parking problems in the area and
that the proposal would exacerbate the situation;
·
That there was a lack of houses in the Porthmadog
area;
·
Considering the observations of the objector, the
site was not suitable for such a development.
(d) In
response to the observations regarding the lack of parking spaces, the Planning
Manager noted that there were no parking spaces associated with the current
use; therefore, it was not considered that the proposal would change the
situation.
Members
made observations and asked questions, the officers responded as follows:
·
In terms of refusing the application due to a lack
of parking spaces, the Transportation Unit did not object to the proposal;
·
If the application was refused, the reason in terms
of a negative impact on resident's amenities based on Policy CH14 of the GUDP
could be a valid planning reason;
·
Following a recent change in legislation, it was
now a requirement to make a planning application for houses in multiple
occupation of this scale;
·
That it was an application for a house in multiple
occupation and that the applicant's justification in terms of the need/use was
providing accommodation for specialist dementia nurses who worked at the Pines
Residential Home and that this in itself was not a material planning
consideration;
·
That there was a need to be careful in terms of
observations that generalised the residents of houses in multiple
occupation. That it was possible that
there were anti-social elements on the site as had been noted by the objector,
but there was no evidence to justify generalising;
·
That it would be difficult to place a condition on
a planning permission to bind the use to specialist dementia nurses only as it
would be likely that this would be unreasonable in relation to the statutory
tests;
·
If the use as a house in multiple occupation would
be approved, the licensing system would control the use.
RESOLVED to approve the application.
Conditions:
1. Time
2. Compliance with plans
Supporting documents: