Agenda item
Reserved matters of permission C14/1248/11/AM to erect 4 blocks of flats containing 70 living units.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Keith
Jones
Minutes:
Reserved matters from outline planning permission
C14/1248/11/AM to erect four blocks of flats to include 70 living units.
(a) The Development Control Team Leader expanded on the background to the application noting that the application involved reserved matters that included
the scale, appearance and landscaping of the site. It was noted that the proposal would provide 24 one bedroom units
and 46 two bedroom units. It was explained that the outline permission was for 77 units, however,
in order to comply with the housing associations' building standards (DQR standard) and in
response to a change in the housing market, the floor area of the units had increased and this
meant a reduction of seven units on
the site.
It was highlighted that the plans had been amended since
the original application submission, in order to:
·
Amend the location
of windows to avoid and reduce overlooking.
·
Amendments to the design,
mainly to rationalise the shape and form
of the buildings.
·
Alterations to materials
and colours proposed.
·
Changes to the arrangements
of units to ensure an acceptable standard
of living for each unit e.g. windows and natural
light.
Attention was drawn to the additional observations that had been received.
It was noted that
the development was not bespoke
student accommodation and was not to provide multiple occupation units and there
was no planning consent for these
types of uses on the site.
Reference was made
to the cross-sections and elevations received from the applicant indicating how the development would sit within the site and its
relation with nearby buildings. It was expanded that a montage had been received to show the appearance of the development from further views across
the city. Attention was
drawn to the montage that demonstrated
that the use of grey shades on
the upper sections of the blocks was a very important element to enable the development to acceptably blend-in. It was noted that it was considered that block two required
grey cladding on the upper floors,
as shown in the montage, to
reduce the prominence of
the floors from further elevations and a condition could be imposed to ensure this.
It was noted that
objections had been received regarding residential amenities including overlooking, it was recognised that there would be an impact, however,
the alterations made to the
plans were sufficient to satisfy the policies.
It was highlighted that a large number
of objections had been received on the grounds of a lack of parking spaces within the site and parking issues
that already existed in the area. It was noted that the proposal would provide 70 living units with
a mixture of one and two bedroom
units and that the site plan indicated 67 parking spaces. It was explained that the parking standards required one parking space
for each living unit, however, this referred to the maximum and it was recognised that a smaller number could be acceptable in some places.
It was noted, bearing in mind the location
of the site in a city and public
transport connections and other facilities,
that it was considered that 67 parking spaces was sufficient and acceptable and the impact of the development would be unlikely to cause additional parking difficulties on nearby streets.
It was reported that discussions had taken place with
the applicant in the context of a bin storage facility. It was noted that no plan had been received confirming
this element, however, the applicant noted in discussions
that there would be bin storage areas with surrounding
fencing. It was confirmed that the plans indicated that it was possible to achieve this, however confirmation
was required from the applicant.
It was recommended that the Committee authorise the Senior Planning and Public Protection
Service Manager to approve
the application subject to
the receipt of a detailed soft landscaping plan together with a plan and details showing
the arrangements to store bins with conditions.
(b) Exercising the
right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main points:-
·
That the location
and proximity of the buildings to the nearby houses had been confirmed;
·
The development
would improve the site in accordance
with the requirements of local and national
plans;
·
Welsh Water
had confirmed that the proposal was acceptable;
·
There would
be designated areas for bin storage on the site;
·
Changes had been
made to the design in response to local concerns;
·
That the number
of units had been reduced from 77 to 70, improving the size of the units and reducing
the impact in terms of parking by 10%;
·
In accordance with what was stated
in the report, the provision of new flats would be a positive contribution to the housing stock, and would meet
the needs identified and contribute to affordable housing needs;
·
The Transportation
Unit did not object to the proposal;
·
There would
be a regeneration benefit from the development as it satisfied identified housing needs.
(c) The local member
(not a member of this Planning Committee) noted the following main points:-
·
There were
too many houses in multiple
occupation in the Hirael
ward;
·
There were
already parking issues in the Hirael ward with many working
in the High Street parking there, the development would add to the problem;
·
That two
storey blocks were suitable for
the site considering the buildings in the area and were
sufficient bearing in mind the size
of the site;
·
That a four
storey block with some units
with balconies, to see the views were
understandable, however, there would be overlooking;
·
The development
would stand out in the landscape, as shown in the montage;
·
The affordability
of the units was questioned
considering the area's
wages;
·
That Bangor was a student city, did not understand how students could be prevented from living there;
·
Concern that
the development would have a negative impact on services
including refuse collection;
·
He was willing
to talk with the developer and he
hoped that consideration would be given to the views of local residents.
(ch) It was proposed and seconded
to refuse the application on the grounds of the height of the two blocks of four-storey flats (namely block
2 and 3) as they were out of character
with the area, and the likely impact of the balconies on the amenities of nearby residents.
The Planning Manager
noted that the principle of the development had been approved and
this included the maximum height of the blocks. Members were reminded that
this was a reserved matters application under consideration, attention could be given to the scale and appearance of the development that may include the bulk of the development. She referred to the comments of the local member and noted
that she understood the concerns regarding housing in multiple occupation,
however, permission would be required for this use.
She added that reducing the number of units had enabled the development to comply with the housing associations' building standards (DQR standard) ensuring the affordability of the units in the future.
During the ensuing
discussion, the following
main observations were noted by members:
·
That the montage indicated that the development would appear large within
the landscape;
·
There was sympathy
with the Local Member. That Bangor City Council stated that the additional floor appeared to be an overdevelopment and was contrary to the character of the nearby area and the application
should be treated as a new application;
·
The site
needed to be developed, however, the development in question was modern and out of character
with the area. The scale of the development was incorrect;
·
Regarding the change
from a mansard roof to a flat roof, did this not affect the height?
·
The height
of the blocks should be considered as part of the development's scale;
·
Objection to the application
in terms of the bulk of the development and that it was out of character with the area.
(d) In response
to the above observations,
the officers noted:
·
The concern in terms
of scale and appearance was noted, amendments to the design could overcome the concerns;
·
The plans submitted as part of the outline application indicated a four-storey block with a mansard roof and dormer windows. As a result of the increase in the floor area of the units, the plans submitted with this application indicated a flat roof. The design was different but there
was no increase in the height and
was therefore in accordance with the conditions on the outline permission.
·
Changing from a mansard roof to a flat roof did not have an impact on
the height but there was an impact
on the bulk of the development.
·
The height of the blocks was a consideration in terms of the scale of the development, but the maximum height of the blocks had been determined under the outline permission.
·
The Committee could defer the application in order to conduct
further discussions with the applicant.
RESOLVED to refuse the
application.
Reason:
On the grounds of the scale and form of the two blocks of four-storey flats (namely block 2 and 3) as they were out of character with the area, and the likely impact of the balconies on the amenities of nearby residents.
Supporting documents:
- Jewson Ltd Penlon Works, High Street, Bangor - Revised Report 10-1-19, item 5.4 PDF 130 KB
- Plans, item 5.4 PDF 2 MB