Venue: Siambr y Cyngor, Council Offices, Cae Penarlâg, Dolgellau, LL40 2YB. View directions
Contact: Bethan Adams 01286 679020
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES To accept any apologies for absence. Minutes: Councillors Dyfrig Wynn Jones and Eric M. Jones |
|
DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST To receive any declaration of personal interest. Minutes: (a)
Councillor John Wyn Williams declared a personal interest, in item 5.6
on the agenda (planning application number C16/1556/18/LL) as his cousin and
niece lived nearby. 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 Senior Solicitor declared a personal
interest in item 5.3 on the agenda (planning application number C16/1430/44/LL)
because he knew the applicant and his family. The officer was of the opinion that it
was a prejudicial interest and he left the Chamber during the discussion on the
application. (c) The
following members declared an interest that they were a local member in
relation to the items noted: ·
Councillor Elfed Williams (not a member of this
Planning Committee), in item 5.1 on the agenda (planning application number
C16/0367/18/LL); ·
Councillor Sion Wyn Jones (not a member of this
Planning Committee), in relation to items 5.2 and 5.5 on the agenda, (planning
application numbers C16/1406/18/LL and C16/1524/18/LL); ·
Councillor Selwyn Griffiths (not a member of this Planning
Committee), in item 5.3 on the agenda (planning application number
C16/1430/44/LL); ·
Councillor Jason Humphreys (not a member of this
Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.4 on the agenda, (planning
application number C16/1472/44/LL); ·
Councillor R. Hefin Williams (a member of this
Planning Committee), in item 5.6 on the agenda (planning application number
C16/1556/18/LL); ·
Councillor R. H. Wyn Williams (not a member of this
Planning Committee) in relation to item 5.7 on the agenda (planning application
number C16/1571/39/LL); ·
Councillor Lesley Day, (not a member of this
Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.8 on the agenda (planning
application number C16/1614/99/LL); ·
Councillor June Marshall, (a member of this
Planning Committee), in relation to item 5.9 on the agenda (planning
application number C16/1675/11/LL); ·
Councillor Mair Rowlands (not a member of this
Planning Committee), in item 5.9 on the agenda, (planning application number
C16/1675/11/LL). The Members withdrew to the other side of the Chamber during the discussions on the applications in question and did not vote on these matters. |
|
URGENT ITEMS To note any items that are a matter of urgency in the view of the Chairman for consideration. |
|
The
Chairman shall propose that the minutes of the previous meeting of this
committee, held on, 13 February 2017, be signed as a true record. (Copy
enclosed) Minutes: The Chair signed the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee, held on 13 February 2017, as a true record. |
|
PLANNING APPLICATIONS To submit the report of Head of Regulatory Department. Minutes: 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 aspects of the policies. RESOLVED |
|
Application No. C16/0367/18/LL - Land by Capel Maes y Dref, Clwt y Bont, Deiniolen PDF 200 KB Full application for the erection of 12 dwellings and construction of an access and estate road. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Elfed Wyn Williams Link
to relevant background documents Additional documents: Minutes: Full application to construct 12 houses and create an entrance and
estate road. (a) The Planning Manager
elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that the site had been
earmarked in the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan (GUDP) for residential
development (houses for general need and the open market) and that a
Development Brief had been provided for the site to accompany the designation.
It was noted that the proposal would involve the erection of four three-bedroom
houses (affordable houses), four two-bedroom houses (open market) along with
four three-bedroom houses (open market). It
was noted that the proposal of providing an element of affordable housing and a
mix of different houses on this site would correspond to the policy aims of the
GUDP and the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan (JLDP). It was
explained that although the JLDP had not been adopted, it was now a material
planning consideration under development control. It was elaborated that
national policy stated that it was important to have a combination of market
value housing and local need affordable housing along with the need to provide
as many affordable houses as possible across the area. In
terms of the transport and access, biodiversity and flooding matters, the
conditions recommended made the application acceptable. It
was reported that the applicant had submitted a viability assessment that
stated that the development would not be viable should an educational
contribution and an open space of recreational value contribution be provided
in response to the policy requirements.
Reference was made to the Joint Planning Policy Unit's assessment of the
information submitted. Based on an assessment of the Joint Planning Policy
Unit, it was clear that the development would not be viable if the
contributions would be needed. It was noted that national policy noted,
provided that the infrastructure required for realising the development was
protected, that the provision of affordable housing should be prioritised. (b)
A request was made to share photographs
- it was noted that they could not be shared at the meeting but that they could
be submitted to the Planning Service. Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted
the following main points:- ·
That flood problems existed in the area; ·
That the Council and Natural Resources Wales (NRW)
were looking for a solution to the problems and approving this application
would prevent this from progressing; ·
That the proposal would exacerbate the situation in
terms of flooding problems. (c)
Taking advantage of the right to speak,
the applicant’s agent noted the following main points:- ·
That there were concerns in terms of flooding on
nearby land and that the Council and NRW had assessed the situation; ·
That the ditch needed to be retained so that the
proposal would be acceptable to the Biodiversity Unit; ·
No discussion had taken place with the owner in terms
of using the land in question as part of the solution to the flooding problems;
·
The application site had been designated as a
housing site; · That discussions ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
Application No. C16/1406/18/LL - Land behind Bethel Chapel, Bethel PDF 204 KB Erect 4 affordable dwellings, construction of an estate road and new vehicular access LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Sion Wyn Jones Link
to relevant background documents Additional documents: Minutes: Erect four affordable houses, create a new estate road and a new
vehicular access. (a) The
Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted
that the proposal involved creating an extension to the estate road with a
turning space and siting of four semi-detached two-storey houses. It was noted
that policy CH7 of the GUDP approved proposals for affordable homes on suitable
rural exception sites directly adjoining the boundaries of villages or centres.
Attention was drawn to the fact that the southern side of the site abutted the
development boundary near the Bron Gwynedd estate and, that from this
perspective, the site could be a rural exception site. It was noted further
that the policy only approved developments for affordable housing where the
need had been proven. It was reported that observations had been received from
the Council's Housing Strategic Unit acknowledging the need for this type of
affordable housing in the area, along with a letter from Grŵp Cynefin
expressing their intention to purchase the house. It was noted that it was considered that the
proposal satisfied the requirements of policy CH7 and the Supplementary
Planning Guidance for affordable housing. It
was reported that a large number of the objections received referred to
previous refusals for residential development on the site and on appeal. It was
explained that the application that had been refused on appeal (3/18/384E) was
an application for outline permission to develop the whole field for a
residential development and that the policy considerations had been different. It was noted that it was considered that this
development was acceptable in principle based on the GUDP's policies and also
within the LDP therefore there was no justification to object to the proposal
on policy grounds. It
was highlighted that the Planning Inspector was of the opinion that it was not
possible to gain acceptable access to the site and that the additional traffic
off Bron Gwynedd was not acceptable in terms of a development that would
provide approximately 12 to 25 houses.
It was noted that the Transportation Unit was of the opinion that the
increase emanating from the additional four houses would not be substantial and
could be acceptable without causing harm to road safety. The
development was acceptable in terms of relevant local and national policies for
the reasons noted in the report. (b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
applicant’s agent noted the following main points: ·
That the report provided clear guidance to the
Committee; ·
That the application had been amended in response
to concerns in terms of amenities, the access had been redesigned, a turning
space had been provided and the parking provision had been amended in response
to the observations of the Transportation Unit; ·
In terms of land drainage, a solution had been
agreed with Welsh Water in principle. ·
The development would contribute towards the
Council's target in terms of providing affordable housing; ·
That Grŵp Cynefin had expressed their
intention to purchase the houses. |
|
Erection of a two storey four bedroom residential dwelling in open countryside with the installation of a septic tank and creation of a new vehicular access and access road. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Selwyn Grifffiths Additional documents: Minutes: Erection of a two-storey four bedroom residential
dwelling in open countryside with the installation of a septic tank and
creation of a new vehicular access and access road. (a) The
Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted
that the application site was located outside the defined development boundary
for the Porthmadog area and consequently it was considered as a site in the
countryside. It
was noted that paragraph 4.3.1 of Technical Advice Note (TAN) 6 'Planning for
Sustainable Rural Communities' noted that one of the few circumstances in which
a new isolated residential development in the open countryside could be
justified was when accommodation was required to enable agricultural or rural
enterprise workers to live at, or close to, their workplace. It was noted
further that the essential nature of this requirement would depend on the needs
of the rural enterprise in question in each specific case, and that it would
not depend on the personal choice or circumstances of any of the associated
individuals. It
was highlighted that there was a reference in the application, specifically
within the Design and Access Statement, together with letters of support, to
the current agricultural use of the land along with a proposed business plan to
change the use of this land for a new sustainable business as well as a local
mountain rescue service using a part of the land. It was noted that no
information had been submitted to the Planning Service to confirm the exact
type of business proposed. Nevertheless,
it was noted that it appeared that there was an established agricultural use on
the land, and therefore, in accordance with the requirements of TAN 6, should
the application be for a house for a full-time agricultural or rural enterprise
worker, information had to be submitted that related to functional, time,
finance and other dwelling tests to prove the need and justification for the
construction of a dwelling in open countryside. It was also noted that the
house could not be considered as an affordable house for the reasons
highlighted in the report. It
was noted that letters of support to the proposal had been received from local
individuals and others, full attention had been given to all material planning
matters noted in the observations received. Attention
was drawn to the fact that the applicant had submitted a formal pre-application
enquiry for the proposal as shown under reference Y16/000248. It was confirmed
in a formal response at the time that such a proposal would be contrary to the
requirements of relevant policies and that the Authority, as a result, would
not be able to support the proposal. (b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following main points: ·
The necessity for the house to be on this site to
manage the established 90 acre farm; · That paragraph 4.5.1 of TAN 6 noted that it could be appropriate and that it was essential for the house to be located on the site in ... view the full minutes text for item 5.3 |
|
Application No. C16/1472/44/LL - 1 Llys y Porth, Porthmadog PDF 168 KB Full application for the change of use of an existing domestic dwelling into a house in multiple occupancy. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Jason Humphreys Additional documents: Minutes: Full
application for the change of use of an existing residential dwelling into a
house in multiple occupation. (a)
The Planning Manager elaborated on the background
of the application, and noted that the site was located within the development
boundary of the town of Porthmadog. It was explained that the proposal,
according to the submitted plans, did not change the existing internal layout
of the building or intended to make any external changes to the building. It was noted that policy CH14 of the GUDP approved
proposals to change the use of the houses in this respect unless the
development would not create an over-provision of this type of accommodation in
a specific street or area where the cumulative impact has a negative impact on
the social and environmental character of the street or area, or is likely to
do so. It is not believed that another building in the close vicinity is being
used as a house in multiple occupation and therefore, it is not believed that
it would lead to an unacceptable cumulative impact within this specific area.
The proposal was acceptable in principle. It was noted that objections had been received to
the application as a result of the public consultation with concern highlighted
in terms of the harmful impact of the proposed use (where it was alleged that
it had already commenced) on the nearby residential amenities in comparison with
the current legal use of the site. Given the current legal use of the property
as a five-bedroom residential property and the amenity impacts that could arise
from that use, it is not considered that there would be a significant change to
the amenities of the neighbourhood from approving the development in question. The development complied with the GUDP for the
reasons noted in the report. (b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, an
objector noted the following main points: ·
That the use of the house as a house in multiple
occupation had commenced for a year; ·
That anti-social behaviour in front of the house
caused concern to her and her family; ·
That parking space was narrow near the site with
more cars parking in front of the house leading to arguments; ·
That the house was not open to local people as
accommodation, as it should be; ·
That the proposal led to the loss of a family home.
(c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s
representative noted the following main points: ·
That she was unaware that there was anti-social
behaviour in front of the house and that she could not envisage the
professionals who lived in the house behaving like this; ·
In terms of parking, no resident owned a car and
they did not intend to own a car either; ·
That it was accommodation for dementia specialist
nurses who worked in the Pines Residential Home in Cricieth; ·
That the proposal
enabled the Residential Home to provide care for local people. (ch) The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) made ... view the full minutes text for item 5.4 |
|
Application No. C16/1542/18/LL - Warehouse near Maes yr Haf, Bethel PDF 151 KB Demolition of the existing warehouse and erection of 2 storey dwellings. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Sion Wyn Jones Additional documents: Minutes: To demolish the existing warehouse and erect a two-storey house. (a) The
Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application,
noting that the application site was located in a residential area that was
relatively consistent in terms of the nature of the dwellings' design, as they
were generally two-storey detached or semi-detached houses (with a few
bungalows) in relatively substantial gardens. It was noted in comparison with
the remainder of the area that the proposed houses was of a completely alien
design to the location, with a metal, mono-pitch roof, that would not be in
keeping at all with any other houses in the locality. In addition, the
development would be out of character with the density of the local development
pattern with only one small strip of land measuring 10m2 for the
amenities of residents in the back and a parking space in the front. It was emphasised that the parking provision associated with
the development did not meet the Wales Parking Guidance (2008). (b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
applicant noted the following main points:- ·
That the proposal coincided with the local area and
kept to the current building; ·
That a bespoke parking area would be provided for
every house; ·
There would be less traffic in comparison with the
previous use as a warehouse; ·
That neighbours were supportive of the proposal and
of the opinion that it would improve the site; ·
That the site was within the development boundary
of the village. (c) The
application was supported by the local member (not a member of this Planning
Committee) and he made the following main points: ·
That the building was in a poor condition and the
proposal would be an improvement; ·
In terms of the lack of parking spaces, there was a
parking space on the highway opposite the site with space for six cars; ·
That the site was within the development boundary
of the village; ·
That letters of support from local neighbours noted
that there were no traffic problems or a lack of parking space. (ch) In response to the above observations, the
officers noted: ·
That developing the site was acceptable in
principle but that possibly there was only space for one house on the site; ·
That the current design did not justify a similar
design; ·
That the design could be amended to satisfy the
road safety element, likely that the footprint would need to be changed; ·
That the parking spaces had to be specific to the
site and not on the street. (d) It was proposed
and seconded to refuse the application. The seconder noted that for consistency with a decision on a previous application where the design was similar to a shed, the application should be approved. The Senior Solicitor explained that a proposal should not be seconded in order to open a discussion; a proposal should only be seconded when a member shared that view. A member noted that it was difficult to propose or second before a discussion ... view the full minutes text for item 5.5 |
|
Application No. C16/1556/18/LL - Ty Gwyn, Waun, Penisarwaun PDF 267 KB Conversion of existing building into three self-catering holiday units. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor R Hefin Williams Additional documents: Minutes: Convert existing buildings into three self-serviced holiday units (a) The
Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application and
noted that the application was in accordance with policies C4 and D15 of the
GUDP and was therefore acceptable in principle.
It was acknowledged that it was inevitable that some noise and
disturbance would emanate from the site, but, given that the site was on the
outskirts of a cluster of 21 existing houses, it was not considered that the
disturbance emanating from three holiday units would cause additional
significant harm to residents' amenities. It
was noted that the Community Council did not object to the proposal but that it
highlighted its concern that the road leading to the site was narrow and that
additional traffic could cause problems.
Attention was also drawn to the fact that the Transportation Unit
accepted, although the development would be likely to lead to an increase in
traffic levels along the local road network, that increase would not be an
unreasonable increase or be harmful to the safety of the road network. It
was noted that considerable correspondence showed evidence of historic flood
incidents in the area including allegations that the local sewerage system was
insufficient to cope with any increased use.
Welsh Water had confirmed that there was capacity in the public sewer
system to take sewage from three additional units provided that no surface
water or land drainage water flowed into the system. Attention was drawn to the
fact that NRW or Gwynedd Consultancy's Land Drainage Department did not have an
objection to the development. It was
confirmed that the buildings would not be extended and the surface of the
parking area would be of slate chippings therefore there would not be an
increase in hard surfaces on the ground, and consequently, the development
would not be likely to exacerbate water drainage problems in any way. Attention was drawn to the additional
observations that had been received. The development was acceptable in terms of relevant
local and national policies for the reasons noted in the report. (b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, an
objector noted the following main points: ·
Concerns in terms of road safety; ·
The proposal would affect the human rights of the
residents that were protected by Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on
Human Rights (ECHR); ·
That an application had been refused approximately
30 years ago because the road was too narrow; ·
That she objected to the balcony because it would
lead to overlooking. (c) Taking advantage of the opportunity to
speak, the applicant noted the following points: ·
The intention of the application was to use the
buildings for a sustainable business to enable his children to return to the
area; ·
That they wished to take advantage of the green
holiday market and provide a plot of land for wildlife on the site; ·
That the Transportation Unit was of the opinion
that there would not be a substantial increase in traffic; · That the proposal ... view the full minutes text for item 5.6 |
|
Application No. C16/1571/39/LL - Former Natwest Bank, Abersoch PDF 171 KB Change of use of Bank (A2) to shop (A1) and ice-cream parlour and café (A3) on ground floor with seating area and servery to the rear and a self-contained flat (c3) on the first floor together with an extension and alterations to building. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor R H Wyn Williams Additional documents: Minutes: Change of use of Bank (A2) to Shop (A1) and
ice-cream parlour and café (A3) on ground floor with seating area and servery
to the rear and a self-contained flat (C3) on the first floor together with an
extension and alterations to building. (a) The Planning Manager elaborated on the
background of the application, noting that the property was in a prominent
location near Abersoch High Street. It was noted that the proposal was a way to
ensure that suitable use was made of a redundant building in a prominent
location in the village. Attention
was drawn to the fact that the applicant had stated his willingness to accept a
condition on any permission restricting the opening and closing hours of the
property to specific hours along with a condition to prevent extending the use
of the ice-cream parlour to a full restaurant or any wider activities within
use class A3. It was noted that it would
be difficult to justify a condition on the permission to restrict the
property's opening and closing hours in such a situation as the site occupied a
location in the centre of the village where various local businesses such as
shops, restaurants, a garage and public house were located. The
development was acceptable in terms of relevant local and national policies for
the reasons noted in the report. (b) The
local member (not a member of this Planning Committee), supported the
application and highlighted the concerns of nearby houses and he asked whether
or not it would be possible to impose a condition that the business closed at
approximately 10:00pm - 11:00pm. In
response, the Planning Manager noted that she was uncomfortable imposing a
condition regarding closing times considering that no other properties of
similar use in the area were being controlled. She added that a condition could
be imposed that prevented it from being used as a takeaway or any other broader
use within use class A3. A
member noted that such a condition should be imposed in order to reduce the
disturbance to local residents. RESOLVED to approve the application. Conditions: 1. Five
years to commence the work. 2. Slates
on the roof of the rear building. 3. Stone finish of the rear
extension to be in-keeping with the main building. 4. Install
the air extraction system within the existing chimney in accordance with the
plans dated 13 January 2017 prior to commencing the permitted use. 5. In accordance with plans. 6. Prevent takeaway use or
broader use within A3. |
|
Application No. C16/1614/99/LL - Bryn Llifon, Meirion Road, Bangor PDF 183 KB Change of use of building from nursing home to student accommodation with 31 bedrooms and management facilities. LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Lesley Day Additional documents: Minutes: Change of use of building from nursing home to
student accommodation with 31 bedrooms and management facilities. (a)
The Development Control Officer elaborated on the
background of the application, and noted that the site was in a mixed use area
of Upper Bangor, approximately 250m from the main building of Bangor University
with the BBC's Bryn Meirion Studio nearby and the University's halls of
residence located opposite. Reference was made to Bangor City Council's
objection to the proposal as it would be an over-development of the site, that
there were similar facilities already located in the vicinity and it would lead
to an increase in traffic, noise and disruption to residents. It was explained that there was no specific policy
in the GUDP dealing with a development of this type; however, policy C4
supported plans to convert buildings for re-use for suitable purposes. It was noted that the building had been used, until
February 2016, as a residential home for the elderly for 31 residents and
considering that such a use led to considerable traffic movements by staff,
families and medical support, including night-time activity, it was not
considered that student use would not be significantly different in terms of
car movements or hours of disruption. Attention was drawn to the additional observations
received, noting that the Joint Planning Policy Unit had assessed the
Linguistic Statement and noted on the whole that it was considered that the
nature of Bangor, in terms of population size, the linguistic pattern of the
town, the variety of services and facilities available there meant that the
developments should not have a substantial detrimental impact on the Welsh
language. The development was acceptable in terms of relevant
local and national policies for the reasons noted in the report. (b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak,
the applicant noted the following main points:- ·
That the family business had a number of student
accommodations in Bangor and that they had carefully considered whether this
was the best use to be made of the building; ·
That a low percentage of the demand was being
satisfied from such accommodation in Bangor; ·
That it was intended to draw up a management plan
for the site; ·
That the proposal would reduce the pressure in
terms of converting houses into houses in multiple occupation; ·
That the proposal would safeguard the building and
there would be less coming and going considering the site's previous use; ·
That a lease was in existence regarding parking
spaces for BBC staff on the site and that there was no intention to change this
arrangement. (c) The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee)
objected to the application and she noted the following main points:- ·
That the site was located in a residential area and
that the development would have a negative impact on the area; ·
That there was an over-provision of student
accommodation in the Garth ward; · Concern regarding waste and recycling and that problems already existed in the area and that she had ... view the full minutes text for item 5.8 |
|
Application No. C16/1675/11/LL - Coed Menai, Menai Avenue, Bangor PDF 168 KB Change of use of existing dwelling (C3 use class) to bed and breakfast accommodation/guest house (C1 use class). LOCAL MEMBERS: Councillors June E. Marshall and Mair Rowlands Additional documents: Minutes: Change of use of existing house (C3 use class) to
bed and breakfast/hotel accommodation (C1 use class) (a) The Development Control Officer elaborated
on the background of the application, noting that policy D14 of the GUDP approved
proposals to convert existing dwellings into high quality serviced holiday
accommodation provided, in the case of a development within development
boundaries, that the development is suitable considering the site, the location
and settlement in question. It
was noted that the site was within the development boundary of the city of
Bangor and although Menai Avenue was mainly residential, the site stands near
to the Ffriddoedd site, with many University facilities such as halls of
residence and leisure and social facilities and therefore there was a
considerable amount of activity in the area. Considering the nature of the site and the surrounding area, it was
deemed that the principle of the development met the requirements of the
policy. It was acknowledged that
although there could be some increase in the number of people using the
building, considering the nature of hotel use with the main activity during
short periods of the day only, the likelihood of disturbance to nearby
residents could reduce from this type of use. It was noted that the development was suitable and
acceptable for the site and that it complied with the local and national
policies and guidelines noted in the report. (b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted the following main points: ·
The proposal would have a negative impact on her
home and impact her amenities in relation to noise; ·
Concern regarding the parking provision; ·
That the site was in a residential area and within
the Conservation Area and that the proposal would harm this character and that
it should be refused for this reason. (a)
Taking advantage of the right to speak,
the applicant noted the following main points: ·
That it was her and her partner's ambition to establish
a quality hospitality business; ·
That there was a lack of such provision in the
area; ·
That the property would be serviced and although
they did not live on the site, the guests would have 24 hour telephone contact
with them; ·
That the proposal would contribute towards the
local economy. (ch) Councillor June Marshall, local member (a
member of this Planning Committee) objected to the application and she made the
following main points: ·
That it would have a negative impact on the
Conservation Area and green space would be lost in order to create a parking
area; ·
That the commercial use was contrary to the
residential use of the area; ·
That the proposal led to the loss of permanent
housing stock. Councillor Mair Rowlands, local member
(not a member of this Planning Committee) noted the following main points: ·
That there was local concern in relation to the
scale and nature of the development and the impact on the area's amenities; · That the proposal led to the loss of permanent housing stock thus creating a precedent that ... view the full minutes text for item 5.9 |