Four-bedroom shared house at 3 Eastfield Place, Merthyr Tydfil

What was proposed

The application sought to change a three-bedroom dwelling into a four-bedroom house in multiple occupation, with internal changes and cycle storage.

“Change of use from 3 bedroom dwelling (C3 use) to a 4 bedroom House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) (C4 use class) 3 Eastfield Place Plymouth Street Merthyr Tydfil CF47 0UP [name withheld] c/o [name withheld] Solutions Ltd 39 Tan Y Lan Terrace Morriston Swansea…”

“This application seeks full planning permission to change the use of the property from a 3 bedroom residential dwelling (C3 Use Class) to a 4 bedroom House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) (C4 Use Class).”

Officer report

The site

The property is a mid-terrace dwelling beside unrestricted on-street parking, with a front area and rear courtyard backing onto a railway line.

“The application site relates to an existing mid terrace dwelling, 3 Eastfield Place, located on Plymouth Street, in Merthyr Town Ward. The property, which is elevated above the level of the road, is served by an open elevated area to the front and a small enclosed private courtyard/garden to the rear, which backs onto the railway line. Unrestricted on-street parking is provided along Plymouth Street.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no other recent or relevant planning history recorded for the site.

“The Council’s records do not indicate any other recent or relevant planning history for this site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the proposal acceptable in principle and recommended approval because it would accord with relevant local planning policies.

“The proposed development seeks to change the use of a 3 bedroom residential dwelling into a 4 bedroom HMO. Given that the property lies within the settlement boundary and the proposal seeks to continue to provide a residential use (albeit of a different nature), it would be acceptable provided it complies with other relevant policies. The proposed development would therefore be acceptable in principle and would accord with LDP Policy SW4.”

“Taking into account the above considerations, concerns raised by local residents and consultee responses, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and would accord with the relevant LDP policies.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

All consultees raised no objection, although Environmental Health recommended conditions.

“Head of Engineering & Highways: No objection.”

“Environmental Health Manager: No objection, subject to conditions.”

Officer report

What people said

One supporting letter and 122 objections were received, with concerns including parking, waste, antisocial behaviour, noise, safety and the area’s character.

“Whilst it is acknowledged that a letter of support was received, the response does not include any details setting out the reasons for supporting the proposal. In regard to the objections, below is a summary of the concerns that have been raised:”

“The surrounding area is made up of many family homes with young children as well as elderly and other vulnerable individuals of all ages, and this proposal would make it unsafe for them. • The development would have an impact on the value of surrounding dwellings. • The site has limited on-site parking and the surrounding streets have insufficient parking for existing residents, resulting in congestion. • HMOs should be placed in town centres rather than outskirts.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, the applicant and two local elected members addressed the committee about access, waste, parking, congestion and antisocial behaviour.

The committee debate

Members heard that there was no vehicular rear access and discussed concerns about maintenance, highways conditions and the property’s management.

“The highway photograph in the presentation was a google maps image, so they are not aware of the time of day it was taken. • There is no vehicular access to the rear of the property.”

“Comments were made regarding echoing everything that was said by local councillors, concerns about maintenance of the property and the disconnect between highways issued perceived and experienced.”

Minutes

The vote

One councillor missed part of the presentation because of IT difficulties and did not vote on the application.

“P/25/0231 - 3 Eastfield Place, Plymouth Street, Merthyr Tydfil, CF47 0UP The Planning Officer D Cross presented the report and provided the committee with a power point presentation outlining the application.”

“Councillor M Jones advised that she had experienced IT difficulties and missed part of the presentation, so was unable to vote on the application.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused the application because intensified residential use and increased traffic and on-street parking would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

“The application be refused on the grounds that the intensification of the residential use of the property and the associated increase in traffic movements and on-street car parking will have an unacceptable impact on highway safety contrary to the requirements of Policy SW11 of the Replacement LDP.”

Minutes