Change of use of dwelling (use class C3) into a home in multiple
occupation (use class C4).
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor
Elin Walker Jones
Minutes:
Change of use of a
house (C3 class use) to a house in multiple occupation (C4 class use).
(a) The Planning Manager
elaborated on the background of the application and noted that
Policy TAI 9 of the JLDP supports
the principle of converting
existing buildings into multiple occupation
housing within the development boundaries subject to meeting four criteria:
1. That the property was suitable for conversion - In considering the size of the building and its current
residential use, it was deemed that there
was no reason to believe that the building was not suitable to provide alternative living units to its existing use.
2. The proportion of houses
in multiple occupation in any
electoral ward should not exceed the specific threshold for the ward - 10% was
the current threshold for Glyder ward, with the current percentage of houses in multiple
occupation in the ward being 6.2%. Only 2 out of 13 houses with the same postcode
were houses in multiple occupation.
3. There would
be no detrimental impact on the residential
amenities of nearby properties - It was considered that the impact on amenities from
this development in itself would
not be significantly different
to what could occur under the current legal use
and therefore, it was not considered that approving one multiple
occupancy unit in the ward would have an
additional significant harmful impact on the residential amenities of close neighbours.
4. Ensure an
appropriate parking provision for the development - The Transportation
Unit had no concerns regarding the proposal. This development was not considered to be significant in terms of changing
the density of the site's use.
It was noted that due to its location
in an existing
residential location, and that residential
use of similar density was proposed here, it was not considered that this development
would harm the amenities of neighbours or the area in general.
The development was acceptable
in terms of relevant local and national policies
for the reasons noted in the report.
(b) The Local Member
(not a Member of this Planning Committee) objected to the application and made the following
main points:-
·
That local
residents and Bangor City
Council councillors objected
the proposal;
·
That the houses
in this area
were family three-bedroom dwellings with a small garden and a parking space
for one car.
·
Lack of parking
space on the street;
·
No need for
a multiple occupation house, with 6.2% of housing in multiple
occupation in the ward, adding to this number would be an over-development.
·
That University
accommodation was half empty;
·
Young people
would create more waste compared to a family, there were
already fly tipping issues in the area;
·
There would
be more nuisance to residents
and there was already a fairly high percentage of lawbreaking in the area;
·
The location
map was misleading;
·
The Committee
was requested to refuse the
application in order to enable the house to be rented by a family, there was no need
for further student accommodation, to reduce the pressure in terms of parking
and waste as well as to reduce lawbreaking.
(c) In response
to the local member’s observations, the officers noted:
·
That not all applications
to convert houses to multi occupation houses were necessarily
for students as some professional people lived in
such houses;
·
Should the application be approved, if there was an
aspiration then the house could still
be available for a family;
·
That 6.2% of housing in the ward were houses in
multiple occupation with the ward's threshold at 10%;
·
It was recognised that the map was not current, but was sufficient to show the location of the site;
·
There was space to store waste within the curtilage;
·
The concerns were accepted,
however, it would be difficult to prove that there was an over-provision of houses in multiple
occupation;
·
There was no parking space
within the site's curtilage, only some houses in
the area had parking space within their
curtilages. The parking standards required ½ a parking space for
each bedroom and therefore for
this development 2½ parking spaces were required. This was no different
to a family house with two cars,
there was on-street parking provision for the site. In
addition, the site was within a reasonable walking distance to the City centre with a bus
service on nearby streets.
(ch) A proposal was made
to undertake a site inspection visit. The proposer noted that he disagreed
that the parking provision was sufficient, the internal alterations would prevent it from being a family
house and that the proposal was an over-development with the possibility that 10 persons could live in
the house and each one with
a car. It was added that a site inspection visit should be conducted in order
to see the actual situation. The proposal was seconded.
RESOLVED to undertake a site inspection visit.
Supporting documents: