The Cardiff Council Planning Committee met to discuss two planning applications. Permission was granted for the conversion of a property on Timbers Square into three self-contained flats, and for the conversion of a five-bedroom house on Llanbedr Road into an eight-bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO).

Llanbedr Road HMO Application

Planning permission was granted for the conversion of a five-bedroom house at 2 Llanbedr Road, Fairwater into an eight-bedroom HMO. The proposal includes replacing the existing rear conservatory with a flat roof extension and demolishing porches and outbuildings.

The committee heard that 55 letters of objection and a petition with 67 signatures had been received, with concerns raised about the impact on the character of the area, community cohesion, parking and highway safety, noise, and the loss of family housing. One letter of support was received, arguing that Fairwater needs affordable accommodation for young people.

Arguments for approval:

• The planning officer stated that the proposal complies with policy H5 of the Cardiff Local Development Plan 2006-2026, and advice within the HMO Supplementary Planning Guidance.
• The officer noted that there are no registered HMOs within 50 metres of the site, well below the 10% threshold for Fairwater.
• The officer stated that the refurbishment of the property would improve the street scene.
• The officer stated that the internal layout meets HMO licensing standards, and the external amenity space exceeds the minimum requirement.
• The officer stated that the provision of one off-street parking space is compliant with parking standards.
• The officer stated that the proposal is in a sustainable location, close to public transport links.

Arguments against approval:

• Councillor McEvoy, a local ward councillor, argued that the recommendation for approval was based on flawed assumptions and an incorrect application of council policies.
• Councillor McEvoy stated that the proposal fails on point 4 of policy H5, as it will have an adverse effect on local parking provision.
• Councillor McEvoy stated that the report contradicts itself by recommending a traffic regulation order (TRO) to manage parking, while also claiming there is no parking risk.
• Councillor McEvoy stated that the assumption that 16 potential occupants will not own a car is ludicrous .
• Councillor Driscoll stated that the area is not suited to this type of accommodation, and the internal space is not adequate.

Committee discussion:

• Councillor Driscoll questioned whether the proposal meets minimum size standards for the accommodation and communal space.
• Councillor Gunter asked for confirmation that only one person can occupy each bedroom, and whether there are any planning standards for bathroom space in HMOs.
• Councillor Hunt expressed unease about the excessive conversion but acknowledged that the application meets policy requirements.

Timbers Square Flat Conversion

Planning permission was granted for the conversion of a property at 6 Timbers Square, Roath into three self-contained flats, with single-storey rear and side extensions and a loft conversion.

The committee was informed that 17 letters of objection and a petition with 67 signatories had been received, raising concerns about density, the impact on the character of the area, parking, loss of family accommodation, and insufficient outdoor amenity space. Councillors Peter Wong, Daniel De'Ath, Mary McGarry and Sue Lent also objected to the proposal.

Arguments for approval:

• The planning officer stated that the proposal complies with policy H5 of the Local Development Plan, which supports the subdivision of residential properties.
• The officer stated that amended plans had been received to reduce the hard stand area at the front of the property, addressing concerns about the impact on the character of the area.
• The officer stated that the proposed rear dormer is comparable to development that could be undertaken under permitted development rights[^2]. [^2]: Permitted development rights allow homeowners to make certain types of alterations and extensions to their homes without needing to apply for planning permission.
• The officer stated that the internal floor area of all three flats meets the minimum requirements set out in the Flat Conversions SPG[^3]. [^3]: Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) provides additional detail and guidance on how to interpret and implement policies in the Local Development Plan.
• The officer stated that two off-street parking spaces are provided, in line with parking standards.

Arguments against approval:

• A petitioner, Mr. Draper, argued that the officer's reliance on policy H5 was misplaced, as the policy only applies to redundant or economically unviable buildings.
• Mr. Draper stated that the proposal would remove a family home and erode the character of the area.
• Mr. Draper stated that one of the flats is below the minimum space standards, and the amenity space is inadequate.
• Councillor Peter Wong stated that Timber Square is a quiet residential community of family homes, and the loss of a family home would have a detrimental impact.
• Councillor Peter Wong stated that the application is an overdevelopment of the site, with unacceptable living standards for future occupants.
• Councillor Peter Wong stated that the proposal would prejudice the privacy of neighbouring occupiers, as a new second-floor window does not meet the prescribed distance from neighbours.

Committee discussion and decision:

• Councillor Shimmin asked about covenants[^4] in place on Timber Square restricting properties to family homes. The officer clarified that covenants are a legal matter and not a material planning consideration. [^4]: A covenant is a legally binding promise or agreement, often included in property deeds, that restricts or specifies certain uses or activities on the land.
• Councillor Driscoll questioned whether the loft conversion would normally be permitted development, and whether the small size of one of the flats would allow for basic furniture.
• Councillor Hunt expressed concern about the over-intensification of the site.
• Councillor Reid-Jones stated that she had a problem with the application and would abstain from voting.
• Councillor Gunter proposed a condition to obscurely glaze a window to protect privacy. This was seconded by Councillor Hunt and approved by the committee.
• Councillor Hunt asked about access to future parking schemes. The officer stated that it would not be appropriate to impose a condition preventing access to future schemes.
• The committee voted to grant planning permission, subject to the condition to obscurely glaze the window.