Agenda and minutes

To accept any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Eric M. Jones.

To receive any declaration of personal interest and to note protocol matters.

a)    Councillor Simon Glyn (a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.4 on the agenda, (planning application number C19/0812/39/LL), as he was father to one of the company's employees.

The member was of the opinion that it was a prejudicial interest and he withdrew from the Chamber during the discussion on the application.

b)    The following members declared that they were local members in relation to the items noted:

·    Councillor Linda Ann Wyn Jones (not a member of this Planning Committee) in relation to item 5.5 on the agenda, (planning application number C19/1028/03/LL)

·    Councillor Gruffydd Williams (a member of this Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.6 on the agenda (planning application number C20/0022/42/DT).

To note any items that are a matter of urgency in the view of the Chairman for consideration.

None to note.

The Chairman shall propose that the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee, held on, 10^th February 2020, be signed as a true record.

The Chair signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee, held on 10 February 2020, as a true record. 

To submit the report of the Head of Environment Department.

The Committee considered the following applications for development.

Details of the applications were expanded upon and questions were answered in relation to the plans and policy

Conversion and change of use of rear part of former Debenhams shop into 6 living units (5 x 1 bedroom and 1 x 2 bedroom)

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Steve Collings

Link to relevant background documents

Conversion and change of use of the rear section of the former Debenhams store to create six residential units (5 x 1 bedroom and 1 x 2 bedroom).

a)    The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that it had been deferred at the January 2020 Committee in order to receive additional information regarding the rent prices of the residential units. It was explained that it was a full application for the change of use of the rear section of the building, which was formerly the Debenhams store in Bangor, to form six self-contained residential units, along with minor alterations to the building. It was noted that there were no concerns in relation to amenities or transport matters. 

Following the deferral of the application in order to obtain information on the rent prices of the affordable units, further information had been received by the agent and the Joint Planning Policy Unit. Policy TAI 15 of the LDP sought to ensure an appropriate provision of affordable housing in the Plan area, and the threshold for affordable housing in Bangor was 20%.  The open market pricing report stated that the open market prices of all the units would be lower than the affordable level of £50,000 in the area, and therefore all the units would fall within the definition of affordable although only 1.2 affordable units would be required. Consequently, it was emphasised that in this case, no legal agreement or planning condition would be required to ensure the provision of affordable housing, since the units would be affordable in any case. It was explained that the location, size and type of units meant that the market prices were affordable, and that the proposal therefore complied with the relevant policies, which were TAI 15 in the LDP and the SPG.

It was explained that, based on what was noted in paragraph 3.3.2 of Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Affordable Housing' (April 2019), householders were expected to pay 25% or less of their gross income on rent for units described as affordable. On the basis of all the information from the report, 25% of the Bangor median income was £464 per month. It was reported that the agent had confirmed that five of the six units provided had an open market rent of £400 per month. Although the median income varied between wards, it was explained that the proposal needed to be considered in relation to the median income of Bangor in its entirety. It was explained that a development in one location could meet the demand for housing within th whole city due to the easy and natural movement between wards, and the proximity of wards to each other (it was noted that Pentir ward had been excluded from the figures on the grounds that it included areas outside Bangor). It was reported that the applicant had provided information based on the Gwynedd and Anglesey local housing market assessment, which stated that there was a current need for 1- and 2-bedroom  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Removal of condition 3 of planning permission C19/0323/11/LL which restricts 2 units out of 8 to affordable units

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Steve Collings

Link to relevant background documents

Revoke condition 3 of planning application C19/0323/11/LL which restricted two out of the eight units as affordable units.

a)    The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that it had been deferred at the January 2020 Committee in order to receive additional information regarding the rent prices of the residential units to be provided as part of the proposal. The condition was originally imposed as clear and definitive information had not been submitted (specifically the open market price), as part of the previous application for the affordable provision. Following the deferral of the application, information had been submitted by the developer regarding the rent prices and open market valuations of the residential units.  Also, an assessment of the value of the units had been submitted by a company of Chartered Surveyors, based on the requirements of the Red Book (2017).  The open market value of the units would vary from £45,000 to £60,000 and the monthly rent of the units would vary between £425.00 and £475.00, with units 4 and 8 within the development offered at a rent of £425 per month. According to Appendix 4 of SPG:  Affordable Housing, in relation to the prices anticipated for intermediate housing for sale in the Deiniol ward in Bangor (2018), the value of an intermediate house was £67,876, which meant that the proposed units could feasibly be purchased by occupiers on a moderate salary. The Council’s Strategic Housing Unit had confirmed that the valuation of the proposed residential units was lower than the affordable price level (intermediate) for the Deiniol ward in Bangor. 

It was noted in the report that consultation had taken place with the Joint Planning Policy Unit in order to receive more information on the rent situation. It confirmed that paragraph 3.3.2 of Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Affordable Housing' (April 2019) stated that householders were expected to pay 25% or less of their gross income on rent for units described as affordable. Although the median income varied between wards, it was explained that the proposal needed to be considered in relation to the median income of Bangor in its entirety. It was explained that a development in one location could meet the demand for housing within a whole city due to the easy and natural movement between wards, and the proximity of wards to each other (it was noted that Pentir ward had been excluded from the figures on the grounds that it included areas outside Bangor). It was reported that the rent of the two affordable units noted at £425 each was affordable in the context of the median Bangor income and the requirements of the SPG and relevant TAN.

It was noted that the open market prices of the units were naturally restricted to being affordable due to the nature and scale of the site and the size of the units themselves.  It was stated that if this information had been submitted with the original application, such a condition would not have been imposed as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Full application for the construction of 4 self-contained living units, creation of estate road with associated services

LOCAL MEMBER: COUNCILLOR JASON W PARRY

Link to relevant background documents

Full application to erect four self-contained residential units and creation of access road together with associated resources.

Attention was drawn to the late observations form and the detailed observations that had been received from the applicant.

               The Members had visited the site.

The Planning Manager elaborated on the application's background, and explained that the application had been deferred at the Planning Committee held on 10/02/20 due to the decision made at the meeting to hold a site visit; to obtain more information about the method of screening the access from adjacent housing; to receive more information about the management of the site, and also to hold a meeting to discuss the application with the Local Member. It was explained that the proposal was to erect four residential units / pods designed and provided to meet the needs of vulnerable individuals. It was noted that the units would be in the Council's ownership and managed as short term accommodation via the Council or registered Housing Association.

It was noted that the development site was located on part of the former Canolfan Segontiwm site and within the development boundaries of the town of Caernarfon, which had been designated in the Local Development Plan as an Urban Service Centre. It was added that the site was near to the Roman fort of Segontium, a scheduled monument, and that discussions had been held with CADW and Gwynedd Archaeological Planning Service about the impact of the proposed development on the scheduled monument. It was an extensive site, and in response to local residents' concerns about the use of the remainder of the site, it was reported that CADW had signalled its intention to designate the remainder of the site as a scheduled monument, that would be likely to prevent further developments.

It was reported that a positive meeting had been held with the Local Member.

The Transportation Unit had no objection to the proposal, and in the context of visual, general and residential amenities, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable in terms of its design, size, scale and exterior materials. The proposal was unlikely to have an unacceptable substantial detrimental impact on any residents or local property.

Having considered all relevant planning matters, including local and national policies and guidance, as well as all the observations received, the proposal was considered acceptable and in compliance with the requirements of the relevant policies.

a)    A proposal to approve the application was put forward and seconded.

b)    In response to a request to provide an additional timber fence along part of the site's boundary with an adjacent house, it was noted that this was not considered to be necessary, and that it was not known whether the owner of the property wished to have a solid fence on their boundary. However, it was suggested that the applicant should hold further discussions with the owner to clarify their wishes about constructing a fence, and to report back to planning officers to confirm the owner's view and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Extend holiday occupancy season to be open year round for holiday purposes

LOCAL MEMBER: COUNCILLOR DEWI W ROBERTS

Link to relevant background documents

Extension of the holiday occupation period to be open throughout the year for holiday purposes.

a)    The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that this was an application to extend the occupancy period on the static holiday caravan site, thus establishing a 12 month holiday season. It was highlighted that the existing permissions restricted the occupancy of the caravans to between 1 March in one year and 17 January the following year. The proposal would increase the occupancy period by around six weeks a year. It was emphasised that there was no intention to add to the number of static caravans on the site, only to extend the occupancy period. It was noted that a number of caravan parks had already been granted permission to extend the occupancy period, and that a precedent had been set.

It was noted that Policy TWR 4 supported proposals to extend the holiday season of existing static caravan and chalet sites provided it could be demonstrated that the accommodation was being used exclusively for holiday purposes and did not become the occupant’s main or sole place of residence.  It was reported that Haulfryn Group had its own measures in place to ensure that the static caravans were only used for holiday purposes and that the owner was not permitted to use the caravan as a permanent residence. Regardless of these measures, it was considered that it would be appropriate, should the application be approved, to include a condition that the static caravans were only used for holiday purposes and that a register was kept of the names of the caravans' occupiers, the duration of their stay and the address of their main residences. 

Reference was made to the fact that Haulfryn Group owned five Holiday Parks in Gwynedd, including The Warren. It was noted that the park was viewed as a valuable tourism asset for the area and that it provided a number of local jobs. There was strong demand for holiday accommodation during the February half term and also for St. Dwynwen's Day and St. Valentine's Day. It was added that Haulfryn Group offered a letting service on behalf of the caravans' owners to assist with short stays during the year.   Extending the holiday season would encourage visitors to spend in the local economy, assist to safeguard local employment and create new employment opportunities that would lead to further investment.  Currently, there were 60 part-time staff and 40 full-time staff in the Warren and it was considered that this would change to 80 part-time staff and 55 full-time staff by being open throughout the year.    

It was believed that the application, with appropriate conditions imposed to ensure that the static caravans were used for holiday purposes only and that a register be kept, was acceptable on policy grounds. It was reported that conditions could also be imposed as recommended by Natural Resources Wales in relation to the flooding matters.

b)    Exercising the right to speak, the agent on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Application for the conversion of a public house to 5 flats together with rear extension and parking area

LOCAL MEMBER: COUNCILLOR LINDA A JONES

Link to relevant background documents

Application to convert a public house into five flats, along with the erection of a rear extension and parking spaces

Attention was drawn to the late observations form that had been received

a)    The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that it was an application to convert a public house into five residential, self-contained flats, along with the creation of parking spaces and an entrance at Wynnes Arms Hotel. It was explained that the use made of the building as a public house ceased at the beginning of 2017 and the building had been boarded up. It was added that planning permission had been granted for a change of use from a public house into offices and the creation of parking spaces, although this had not been commenced.

Reference was made to section 5.1 - 5.7 of the report that outlined the fact that the development was acceptable in principle, and that the Strategic Housing Unit had stated that there was a recognised need for one and two bedroom flats in the town.

It was expected that at least 10% of the units would be affordable, and reference was made to the information that had been submitted with the application, and the late information that was submitted, that confirmed that the open market and rent prices for each unit were already affordable for the area, and that no further restriction was needed.

In the context of visual amenities, it was noted that the site was situated within the development boundary of Blaenau Ffestiniog and in a prominent location within a residential and public area. Objections had been received, citing the substantial negative impact on the occupiers of nearby properties. However, as the building's legal use was as a public house, there was a potential for the public house to create more problems than a residential unit.  It was considered that flats would be suitable, and would be a way of securing the building's use and long-term condition. 

In the context of highway matters, it was noted that it was intended to create a new entrance and parking spaces, and although the Transportation Unit had no objection to the proposal, it was recommended that appropriate conditions be imposed on any permission.

b)    Exercising the right to speak, the agent on behalf of the applicant noted the following main points:

·           The plans included a new extension that would improve the appearance of the building

·           Residential use was more appropriate for the building than use as a public house

·           There was a suitable site for installing refuse bins and a bicycle storage area

·           Although the Town Council had challenged the need for flats, the Strategic Housing Unit stated that there was a recognised need for one and two bedroom flats in the town

·           Although there was no lack of housing in the town, flats were scarce

·           In terms of affordability, prices were low as it was a low income area

·           Information from two estate agent companies had informed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Demolition of existing external store, alterations to existing main house and part single storey, part two store extension to side and rear.

LOCAL MEMBER: COUNCILLOR GRUFFYDD WILLIAMS

Link to relevant background documents

Demolition of existing external store, alterations to the existing main house and part single-storey, part two-storey extension to side and rear

a)     It was reported that the Biodiversity Unit had recommended that a Protected Species survey (bats and nesting birds) should be undertaken prior to approving the development. It was noted that it would not be appropriate to consider the application prior to the receipt of the report of this survey as it was essential to assess the principle of the proposal. It was recommended that the application should be deferred in order to receive the report.

b) It was proposed and seconded to defer the application for the following reasons:

·         To receive the Protected Species survey report (bats and nesting birds)

·         A member also noted that a site visit was needed as so many developments had taken place there over the years.

It was RESOLVED to defer the application in order to receive a Protected Species report (bats and nesting birds) and hold a site visit.