Agenda item

            The Senior Planning Officer outlined the application to the Committee and highlighted that the scheme was compliant with Policy HOU10 in that the 10% threshold for Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMO) on Friendly Way had not yet been reached.

            He stated that officers considered that the scheme would not be harmful in terms of impact upon traffic and parking or residential amenity.

            He informed the Committee that 290 objections had been received which had raised issues with regard to impact on amenity, parking and waste storage.

            He stated that, having regard to the Local Development Plan and other material considerations, the proposal was considered acceptable and it was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.

            The Chairperson welcomed Councillor McKay to the meeting.

            Councillor McKay highlighted that the reason the application was before the Committee was because of significant local opposition to the proposal. 

He stated that the Local Development Plan provided for the retention and cultivation of social communities and that he believed that the application was contrary to this.  He stated that the property had been a family home and would be converted and split up for single people staying in rooms when there were families in the community who had been waiting up to ten years for three-bedroom houses to become available.

He explained that the proposal did not fit the community that live there and was completely against the character of the Markets area.  He stated that it was important for communities to have a say on their areas and, in the Markets area, families were struggling to remain in the area and he urged to Committee to take account of those views.

            The Committee agreed to hear from Mr. D. Worthington, Pragma Planning, and Mr. F. Hargey, Market Development Association, who had submitted a late request to make representations to the Committee in objection to the application, and the Chairperson welcomed them to the meeting.

            Mr. Hargey stated that the Market Development Association was the overarching community group within the Markets area and he explained that the strength of the community’s feeling on the issue was demonstrated by the number of letters of objection submitted with the main concern being that such proposals hollow the community from the inside out. 

            He reported that there were already several similar properties being used as Airbnb’s and that, whilst tourism was welcome in the city, it was socially irresponsible tourism comprising of hen and stag parties that were situated beside family homes.  He highlighted recent protests in European cities in relation to socially irresponsible tourism.

            Mr. Worthington explained that the principle basis of the objection was the LDP strategy, Policy HOU3, which stated that there was a general presumption in favour of retaining residential stock for permanent occupation. 

            He informed the Committee that the purpose of Policy HOU3 was expressly to protect existing dwellings and that the proposal was in an established residential area and that HMO’s were not considered housing and the policy was therefore engaged by the proposal as it was not complementary to the surrounding residential area and would impact on amenity.

            He explained that Friendly Way was exclusively family housing which had been designed in an era where car ownership was much lower and so there was already substantial overparking in the street.

            He stated that the proposed HMO did not provide a like for like replacement and did not address local need for housing and would be likely to generate adverse effects on existing residential amenity and it was relevant that the noise impact of the application be considered.

            A Member requested that further guidance be made available to the Committee to assist with the intensification of parking provision in relation to HMOs in comparison with family homes, when considering similar applications in the future.

            A Member asked if the proposal provided sufficient living space in terms of the kitchen, dining and living space combined into one area.  The Senior Planning Officer stated that the proposal met the space standards set out in the Local Development Plan.

Proposal

Moved by Councillor Brennan,

Seconded by Councillor Carson, and

      Resolved - “That the Committee refuses the application based on Policy HOU3, in order to protect the residential stock in an established residential community and the quality of living accommodation and delegates authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the reasons for refusal.”