Six-bedroom HMO at Greenwich House Aberfan Road, Aberfan, Merthyr Tydfil

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Merthyr Tydfil Planning, Regulatory and Licensing on 22 Apr 2026.

P/26/0032RefusedAgainst officer advice

What was proposed

The application sought permission to change a five-bedroom dwelling into a six-bedroom house in multiple occupation without external alterations.

“This application seeks full planning permission to change the use of the property from a 5 bedroom dwellinghouse (C3 Use Class) to a 6-bedroom House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) (C4 Use Class).”

“Whilst the proposal does not involve any internal or external alterations to the property, it is noted that the existing dining room on the ground floor would instead be used to provide an additional bedroom. The property also provides a sitting room, kitchen, utility and shower room on the ground floor. There are 4 existing bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor and an existing bedroom within the roof space.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The mid-terrace property has no dedicated parking, a small rear garden and access to nearby streets with limited on-street parking.

“This application relates to an existing 5 bedroom mid terrace dwelling. It is a substantial property with spar dash rendered elevations and a slate roof. The surrounding area is a mix of residential properties, local shops and a pub located in the Bronheulog Terrace element of Aberfan Road. The application property sits at the back edge of the pavement and has a small private rear garden area.”

“There are no existing or proposed dedicated off-street parking spaces. However, there is limited on street parking available along one side of Bronheulog Terrace and along nearby streets.”

Officer report

Planning history

An earlier application to change the property to a dwellinghouse was approved in 2002.

“P/02/0455 – change of use of property to a dwellinghouse – Approved 20 th December 2002.”

Officer report

Officers’ assessment

Officers considered the change acceptable in principle and found no significant harm to character, residential amenity, ecology, parking or highway safety.

“The key issues to consider in the assessment of this application relate to whether the principle of the development is acceptable in this location and whether it would be appropriate in respect of its potential impact upon the character and appearance of the area, residential amenity, ecology, parking provision, and highway safety.”

“With regard to the potential impact upon highway safety, the proposed HMO would increase the number of bedrooms from 5 to 6. Typically, 1 parking space per bedroom would be sought, up to a maximum of 3 parking spaces for any residential property. As such, the provision of an extra bedroom would not necessarily require additional parking to be provided.”

Officer report

Recommended decision

The officer recommendation was approval, subject to conditions covering commencement, approved plans, cycle parking, refuse storage and biodiversity enhancements.

“Prior to the occupation of the property as a House in Multiple Occupation, details of cycle parking facilities to serve the development, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details and shall be…”

“Prior to the occupation of the property as a House in Multiple Occupation, details of the location and type of refuse & recycling storage facility to serve the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The storage facility shall be provided in accordance with the approved details and shall be available for such purposes prior to the beneficial use of the property as a House in Multiple Occupation.”

Officer report

Objections raised

Eighteen objections raised concerns about parking, congestion, noise, antisocial behaviour, waste, safety, community impact and management.

“As a result of this publicity exercise, 18 letters of objection have been received. Below is a summary of the concerns that have been raised:”

“The site is on a busy road with limited on street parking and surrounding streets are also limited with insufficient parking space causing congestion. • The proposal would harm the character of the area and fail to respect Aberfan’s historic sensitivity and character. • Allowing the proposal could set a precedent for the development of further HMO’s in the area. • The proposal increases the potential for noise, disturbance, anti-social behaviour and crime.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke in support, while Councillor Darren Roberts outlined residents’ concerns about intensification, amenity, parking, safety and community impact.

Members’ questions

Planning officers explained the attic room, local management arrangements, an earlier refusal, licensing responsibilities, parking impacts and consultation practice.

“In response to the questions raised by the committee members, Planning Officers advised that:”

“The attic room is large, and the staircase has been approved by building control.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because existing parking congestion would cause an unsatisfactory impact on highway safety, contrary to Policy SW11.

“The application be refused due to unsatisfactory impact on highway safety due to existing parking congestion in the area contrary to Policy SW11 of the Merthyr Tydfil Local Development Plan.”

Minutes

The members' reasons

The members' reasons are quoted from the minutes above, under “The committee’s decision”.

Sources

  • Merthyr Tydfil Planning, Regulatory and Licensing minutes, 22 April 2026
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of Merthyr Tydfil's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.

Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API

The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.

See the API →

At the meeting

Date
Wednesday 22 April 2026
Recommendation
Officers recommended approval
Committee decided
Refused, against officer advice
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)

This committee's year

11 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 4 against officer advice.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →