Row Over House Of Multiple Occupation

Tempers frayed in a council meeting about a contentious house of multiple occupation (HMO) and how many parking spaces should be provided.

Cllr Peter Black was particularly animated after Cllr Rob Stewart, speaking as a Morriston ward member, addressed the planning committee.

Cllr Black gesticulated and said, “No, let me speak,” when Cllr Stewart sought to raise a point of order. Another councillor, Mair Baker, was later heard saying, “I just give up,” when the vote was taken.

The committee had previously refused planning permission on parking grounds for a six-bedroom HMO in Springfield Street, Morriston, following a site visit. This went against the advice of planning officers.

The committee met again to clarify its reason for refusal given that the council might have to defend it at appeal.

Prior to the meeting planning officers drafted a suggested refusal reason, which said there would be insufficient off-street parking to accommodate the proposed development and that the spaces could not be accommodated on-street. This in turn, said the draft refusal, would lead to indiscriminate parking impacting on road and pedestrian safety.

The planning officers’ recommendation, however, remained that the change of use application to an HMO should be approved.

The committee was told residential homes with three bedrooms or more in Swansea normally required a maximum of three parking spaces and that it was the same for HMOs with up to six occupants such as the proposed Springfield Street one.

Officers therefore judged that the change of use of the Springfield Street house to an HMO generated a similar parking demand as its existing use.

The property has one driveway parking space and the applicants also planned to add cycle storage.

The planning report before the committee said: “Very few properties along Springfield Street benefit from off-road parking and there is a mix of
residents’ only and unrestricted on-street parking. This property however benefits from one off-road car parking space and the local highway authority raises no objections to the proposal subject to conditions, including retaining the existing car parking space and restricting the number of residents to six.”

An objector spoke at the meeting outlining residents’ concerns about the impact on parking if the HMO was approved given how difficult it was for residents already.

She said if occupants of the HMO parked directly outside the property they’d obstruct its driveway and take up a chunk of the pavement. She also said if a car was parked in the driveway occupants who chose to cycle would need to lift their bike over the car to put it in the storage area because the driveway was so narrow.

Cllr Stewart, who is not on the committee, spoke as a Morriston ward member in support of residents. He said the council had a policy in such cases requiring three parking spaces to be in existence and that ignoring this would send “all the wrong messages to hostile developers”.

“I really would hope that you support the drafted statement from officers around the reasons for refusal and I would ask the committee to continue to oppose the application,” said Cllr Stewart, who is leader of the council.

Cllr Black said it wasn’t the council’s policy that a property like the one in question should have three parking spaces. The policy was, he said, that  parking provision for an HMO of this size was the same as for a residential house.

He described Cllr Stewart’s comment on this point “a misleading statement on the part of the leader who has supported this policy throughout” in terms of how HMOs should be determined in Swansea.

Cllr Stewart sought to raise a point of order that he had been addressing the committee as a local member not as council leader but a finger-pointing Cllr Black pressed on, saying: “No, let me speak.”

Cllr Black said the policy meant HMOs in his Manselton ward had been approved despite parking concerns and that now the committee was being asked to change it “to accommodate the leader’s ward in Morriston”. He said he found this “objectionable”.

Cllr Peter May said he had objected when the policy in question was being developed years ago and that he had been the subject of “not very nice” remarks by the council leader. “But now I think we can see why I was making these objections,” he said.

Cllr May suggested the committee added another reason for refusal to the one already drafted, namely that approving the HMO application would conflict with an attached cycle storage condition because occupants would have to lift their bikes over a parked driveway car.

Cllr Mike White said the issue at hand was public safety and that fellow committee members should, having been on a site visit, show “common sense” and vote against the application.

A highways officer said in her opinion “we haven’t got a leg to stand on” if it was turned down and went to appeal.

Committee members went on to vote twice: once to turn down the application, then to support the two proposed reasons for refusal.

Cllr Stewart didn’t respond to the comments directed towards him as he only had one opportunity to speak as is the case for non-committee members at planning meetings.