skip to main content

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

 

Link to relevant background documents

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: