Four-person shared house at 11 Station Terrace, Treherbert

What was proposed

The application sought to change a dwelling into a four-person, four-bedroom house in multiple occupation, using internal alterations.

“APPLICATION DETAILS Full planning permission is sought for the change of use of an existing residential dwelling (Use Class C3) to a 4 person house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4) at 11 Station Terrace, Treherbert, CF42 5HU”

Officer report

The site

The property is a traditional mid-terrace dwelling with rear amenity space, no off-street parking and access from pedestrian and rear lanes.

“The conversion would be undertaken through a number of internal alterations to facilitate the operation of a 4-bedroom HMO. The resulting layout would accommodate a kitchen, conservatory, lounge, bathroom, W/C, entrance hallway and a bedroom on the ground floor and 3no. ensuite bedrooms on the first floor. No off-street parking provision is proposed. Primary access would be gained off pedestrian lane to the front.”

“SITE APPRAISAL The application property relates to a traditional mid terrace dwelling located within the village of Treherbert. The property is located within a terrace which does not benefit from direct access to a highway with the principal elevations accessed via a pedestrian lane with runs the length of the terrace. To the rear, the property benefits from an enclosed amenity space bounded on both sides by neighbouring properties and an access lane to the rear.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Two earlier applications for houses in multiple occupation at the property were refused in April and November 2024.

“PLANNING HISTORY The most recent planning applications on record associated with the application site are: 24/0372/FUL: Change of use from a C3 dwelling house to a C4 HMO (5 bedrooms) Decision: 06/04/2024, Refuse.”

“24/0690/FUL: Change of use from a C3 dwelling house to a C4 house in multiple occupancy (HMO) (4 bedrooms and 2 full bathrooms) Decision: 25/11/2024, Refuse.”

Officer report

Officers advised approval

Officers considered the proposal acceptable because it would retain residential use, provide suitable accommodation and avoid unacceptable effects on character, highways and amenity.

“The SPG for the Development of Flats advises that flats are unlikely to be acceptable where they are located where habitable rooms would only have roof light windows and that the Council will resist proposals that would create poor quality living accommodation. In the case of this application all the proposed bedrooms and habitable rooms are considered to be of an acceptable scale and all rooms would benefit from windows with natural light and reasonable outlook.”

“Consequently, it would not have any impact on the character and appearance of the application property. Taking the above into account, the application is considered acceptable in this regard. Impact on residential amenity and privacy The works proposed to the roof of the existing two storey rear extension that would see the pitched roof replaced with a flat roof are considered to have a positive impact upon the amenity of the adjoining occupiers through removal of mass and a…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Council consultees raised no objections, although some recommended conditions or separate licensing controls for matters including noise, waste and drainage.

“6no. letters of objection have been received following consultation. The points raised have been summarised below and are considered within the body of the report: • There is already a severe lack of parking in this area. If this application was successful, the proposal would put more of a parking strain on local residents.”

“CONSULTATION Transportation Section: No objection raised. Public Health and Protection: No objection although conditions recommended in relation to construction hours, noise, dust and waste. It is also noted that the proposed HMO would need to be licensed in accordance with the Council's separate Additional Licensing Scheme. Flood Risk Management (Drainage): No objection although condition recommended in relation to surface water risk.”

Officer report

Who presented the item

The Head of Major Development and Investment presented the application and explained its earlier consideration by the committee.

Members’ discussion

Members considered the further advice about the strengths and weaknesses of refusing the application against the officer recommendation before reaching their decision.

“The Head of Major Development and Investment presented the application which was originally reported to Committee on 24 th July 2025, where Members were minded to refuse the application, contrary to the officer recommendation of the Director, Prosperity and Development.”

“Members gave consideration to the further report, highlighting the potential strengths and weaknesses of refusing contrary to officer recommendation and following discussions, it was RESOLVED to refuse the application contrary to the recommendation of the Director, Prosperity and Development for the reason below:”

Minutes