Wrthi'n llwytho
Y penderfyniadau fel y mae cofnodion y cyngor yn eu cofnodi. Bydd crynodeb mewn iaith glir yn dilyn pan fydd wedi'i ysgrifennu.
Resolved that: The application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
Resolved that: The application The Chair notified the committee that there would be an adjournment to discuss the reasons for refusal. After the adjournment, the Chair read out the reasons for refusal: · There are concerns that there would not be adequate supervision of the property, and its residents, due to the lack of a proper CCTV system and a lack of house rules. · The proposal would change the fabric of this small street and be detrimental to its character which is mainly made up of families with young children, causing an adverse long-term effect on nearby residents. · The street is already heavily congested, and the parking situation is extremely difficult. Whist there is a car park across the road from the property, this fills up very quickly and the creation of a HMO property would only exacerbate this issue, especially if its occupants are professionals and all own a vehicle. · The provision of a HMO would result in disruptions and other nuisances and deteriorate the existing quiet and safe street it currently is. · The proposal is likely to result in an increase in anti-social behaviour, which has been evident at a nearby HMO. There are also concerns in respect of who would deal with such issues. · The proposed use would increase the risk of fire at the property, which could have devastating consequences for its occupiers and surrounding residents. · The street already has a high level of anti-social behaviour, particularly near the archway access, which provides a pedestrian route from Overton Street to Alma Street. Given that the street is largely made up of families with children, the proposed use would present a massive risk to residents, given the likely profile of people who would be housed there, namely persons who have committed offences and individuals with complex needs. · The development would give rise to concerns of personal safety for existing residents in the area. Councillor B Carter left the meeting at 18:09. A vote was taken on the reasons for refusal, and it was Resolved that: The proposal be deferred to the next meeting.
Resolved that: The application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
Resolved that: The application be refused. The Chair notified the committee that there would be an adjournment to discuss the reasons for refusal. After the adjournment, the Chair read out the reasons for refusal: · The property is not in a sustainable location, it is not well served by public transport, or modes of sustainable transport. · The property is not readily accessible to local amenities to serve future occupiers, which conflicts with national policy. A vote was taken on the reasons for refusal, and it was Resolved that: The proposal be deferred to the next meeting.
Resolved that: The Appeal be received.
Resolved that: The Appeal be received.
Resolved that: The Delegated Decision report be received.
No apologies for absence were received.
No Declarations of Interest were made.
The Minutes of the Planning and Regulatory Fact Finding Meeting held 21 March 2024 be received.
The Minutes of the Planning and Regulatory Fact Finding Meeting held 21 March 2024 be received.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
Resolved that: The application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
Convert existing dwelling into two 3 bedroom flats and one flat The Planning Officer D Cross introduced the report and provided the committee with a power point presentation outlining the application. The following questions were raised by the committee and were responded to in detail by the Officers in attendance: · Is there a member of staff from the Engineering department on Teams tonight? · Why was that work undertaken when no planning permission had been given? · What are the reasons why they are not objecting on transport and engineering grounds? · What would happen from an engineering point of view about the bus stop? · Can they park in the Gwaelodygarth with no problems? · Changing a property into an Airbnb - can you explain why an application doesn’t have to be given to the council? · Is it the intention of the owner for the flats to be for sale or for rental? · Is there sufficient space in the rear garden for families? The following comments were raised by the committee: · Converting St Johns Lodge into three flats is not in keeping with the surrounding area. The possibility of the owner changing the status of the flats into an Airbnb would be detrimental to the properties in the area. Parking will also cause problems for the area. · There are quite a few Airbnb's in the area, and they don't usually cause problems. · The Chair notified the Committee that more questions were asked at the site visit. · There is room for 6 cars to park at the property. Resolved that: The application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
Resolved that: The application The Chair notified the committee that there would be an adjournment to discuss the reasons for refusal. After the adjournment, the Chair read out the reasons for refusal: · There are concerns that there would not be adequate supervision of the property, and its residents, due to the lack of a proper CCTV system and a lack of house rules. · The proposal would change the fabric of this small street and be detrimental to its character which is mainly made up of families with young children, causing an adverse long-term effect on nearby residents. · The street is already heavily congested, and the parking situation is extremely difficult. Whist there is a car park across the road from the property, this fills up very quickly and the creation of a HMO property would only exacerbate this issue, especially if its occupants are professionals and all own a vehicle. · The provision of a HMO would result in disruptions and other nuisances and deteriorate the existing quiet and safe street it currently is. · The proposal is likely to result in an increase in anti-social behaviour, which has been evident at a nearby HMO. There are also concerns in respect of who would deal with such issues. · The proposed use would increase the risk of fire at the property, which could have devastating consequences for its occupiers and surrounding residents. · The street already has a high level of anti-social behaviour, particularly near the archway access, which provides a pedestrian route from Overton Street to Alma Street. Given that the street is largely made up of families with children, the proposed use would present a massive risk to residents, given the likely profile of people who would be housed there, namely persons who have committed offences and individuals with complex needs. · The development would give rise to concerns of personal safety for existing residents in the area. Councillor B Carter left the meeting at 18:09. A vote was taken on the reasons for refusal, and it was Resolved that: The proposal be deferred to the next meeting.
Change of use from 4 bedroom dwelling (C3 use class) to HMO (C4 use class) The Planning Officer D Cross introduced the report and provided the committee with a power point presentation outlining the application. The following questions were raised by the committee and were responded to in detail by the Officers in attendance: · Is it correct that an HMO thathas 5 or more residents has to have a license? · Has this property got a license? · Does the council have recommendations and expectations regarding room sizes in HMOs? · Was this property previously two properties and then merged into one? · Why don't theregulatory bodies work together to discuss everything? · HMOs in Cardiff compared to Merthyr Tydfil – is this something that needs to be in the Local Development Plan and can this be a discussion point in the near future? · What constitutes a high concentration of HMOs in Merthyr Tydfil? · Does the applicant own any other HMOs in Merthyr Tydfil? The Chair notified the Committee that more questions were asked at the site visit. The following comments were raised by the committee: · Concerns were raised regarding the size and location of the property. · The proposal would change the fabric of this small street and be detrimental to its character. · Concerns regarding anti-social behaviour were raised. Following further comments by the committee in relation to the application it was Resolved that: The application The Chair notified the committee that there would be an adjournment to discuss the reasons for refusal. After the adjournment, the Chair read out the reasons for refusal: · There are concerns that there would not be adequate supervision of the property, and its residents, due to the lack of a proper CCTV system and a lack of house rules. · The proposal would change the fabric of this small street and be detrimental to its character which is mainly made up of families with young children, causing an adverse long-term effect on nearby residents. · The street is already heavily congested, and the parking situation is extremely difficult. Whist there is a car park across the road from the property, this fills up very quickly and the creation of a HMO property would only exacerbate this issue, especially if its occupants are professionals and all own a vehicle. · The provision of a HMO would result in disruptions and other nuisances and deteriorate the existing quiet and safe street it currently is. · The proposal is likely to result in an increase in anti-social behaviour, which has been evident at a nearby HMO. There are also concerns in respect of who would deal with such issues. · The proposed use would increase the risk of fire at the property, which could have devastating consequences for its occupiers and surrounding residents. · The street already has a high level of anti-social behaviour, particularly near the archway access, which provides a pedestrian route from Overton Street to Alma Street. Given that the street is largely made up of families with children, the proposed use would present a massive risk to residents, given the likely profile of people who would be housed there, namely persons who have committed offences and individuals with complex needs. · The development would give rise to concerns of personal safety for existing residents in the area. Councillor B Carter left the meeting at 18:09. A vote was taken on the reasons for refusal, and it was Resolved that: The proposal be deferred to the next meeting.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
Resolved that: The application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
Change of use of dwelling (C3 Use Class) to House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) for 3 persons (C4 Use Class) and erection of a bike shed The Planning Officer A Foote introduced the report and provided the committee with a power point presentation outlining the application. The following questions were raised by the committee and were responded to in detail by the Officers in attendance: · Has there been any consideration to this property's locality? · Conservation area - does CCTV have to be placed? · Questions were asked regarding parking. · In relation to the potential number of individuals that could reside in the property, is there a potential for at least six individuals? · How do you know that there are only going to be three people living there at one time? · Can more than three people stay there? · Regarding the application, were the owners told to change their application to three people? · Why didn't they apply for a C4? · What is the difference between the C3 and C4 planning status? · What would be in place in terms of safety amenities and management for this property? Cllr L Davies left the meeting at 18:30. The following comments were raised by the committee: · Concerns were raised regarding the buying of properties by companies. Resolved that: The application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
Resolved that: The application be refused. The Chair notified the committee that there would be an adjournment to discuss the reasons for refusal. After the adjournment, the Chair read out the reasons for refusal: · The property is not in a sustainable location, it is not well served by public transport, or modes of sustainable transport. · The property is not readily accessible to local amenities to serve future occupiers, which conflicts with national policy. A vote was taken on the reasons for refusal, and it was Resolved that: The proposal be deferred to the next meeting.
Change of use from a C3 dwelling house to a C4 house in multiple occupancy (HMO) (5 bedrooms) The Planning Officer A Foote introduced the report and provided the committee with a power point presentation outlining the application. The following questions were raised by the committee and were responded to in detail by the Officers in attendance: · How does the location meet the requirement of a sustainable environment? · Questions were raised regarding the location and lack of amenities? · Where are the letters of objections? · Who are the applicants? Are they a letting agency? Have they got other properties? · Who’s going to monitor the number of people permanentlyresiding in the property? · Is there an active hairdresser next door to the property? · Do they pay five council taxes? · Does this property have one communal kitchen? · How many bathroom/shower facilities are there? The following comments were raised by the committee: · We need to develop sustainable communities in Merthyr Tydfil. · The property is in an isolated area making access to services difficult. · There are going to be more applications by companies. Cllr E Galsworthy left the meeting at 19:18. Following further comments by the committee in relation to the application it was Resolved that: The application be refused. The Chair notified the committee that there would be an adjournment to discuss the reasons for refusal. After the adjournment, the Chair read out the reasons for refusal: · The property is not in a sustainable location, it is not well served by public transport, or modes of sustainable transport. · The property is not readily accessible to local amenities to serve future occupiers, which conflicts with national policy. A vote was taken on the reasons for refusal, and it was Resolved that: The proposal be deferred to the next meeting.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
Resolved that: The Appeal be received.
Replacement of existing (unauthorised) windows to first and second floors with upvc sliding sash windows and to dormer windows with upvc flush fitting casement window Resolved that: The Appeal be received.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
Resolved that: The Appeal be received.
Resiting of existing residential mobile home, expansion of residential curtilage and construction of day room/utility area, provision of ancillary tourer and parking area with ecological enhancements Resolved that: The Appeal be received.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
Resolved that: The Delegated Decision report be received.
1st February 2024 – 31st March 2024 Resolved that: The Delegated Decision report be received.
The Chair advised that there was no other business deemed urgent.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.