Application for the proposed demolition of existing building and erection of 3 storey building to create a total of 27 student apartments, relocation of pavement, creation of layby and parking for 7 vehicles.
Local Member: Councillor John Wynn Jones
Minutes:
Application for
the demolition of the existing building and erection of a three-storey building
to create 27 flats for students, relocation of pavement and creation of lay-by
and parking for seven vehicles.
(a) The Development Control
Manager elaborated on the background of the application and noted that the site
was located within a residential area in the city of Bangor and within the
development boundary, on steep land along Euston Road, near the Postal Sorting
Office and railway.
Reference was made to the relevant policies together with
the consultations as noted in the report.
In terms of the principle of the development, it was noted:
·
That the building was not currently in use.
·
CADW did not consider that the building met criteria for it to be
listed.
·
The proposal involved erecting a new building to provide student
accommodation and that there was no
specific policy in the UDP to deal with a development of this type.
·
There was a need to weigh up material considerations when deciding
whether or not the principle of siting
the proposed development in this particular location was acceptable.
·
Figures and tables showed the latest situation involving student
accommodation developments in Bangor.
As a result of additional statements submitted as part of
the application, it was considered that the proposal complied with the
requirements of the relevant policies.
It was noted that the Transportation Unit was satisfied
with the on-street parking provision and with the retention of the pavement.
A Linguistic and Community impact statement was submitted
with the application and after consulting with the Joint Planning Policy Unit
it was considered that the proposal was in accordance with the relevant
policies and that it would not have an impact on the Welsh language.
Based on all considerations, it was considered that the
proposal was acceptable in respect of local and national policies, and that
there were no other material planning matters that stated otherwise, and that
consequently, the application should be approved subject to relevant
conditions.
(b) Taking advantage of the
right to speak, an objector noted the following main points:
·
that there was an excessive supply of student accommodation in
Bangor and that no more was required;
·
halls of residence were not full;
·
a substantial number of empty spaces were available in private
sector houses;
·
there had been a deterioration in Bangor’s total student
population for several years;
·
the main objection was for the demolition of the building that was
an important part of Bangor and Wales as architectural heritage was quickly
disappearing;
·
planning consideration noted “that the building on the site was a historical
one that had important architectural elements and a community history to the
area”;
·
CADW had not granted a listed status to the building as it had
lost many of its internal features;
·
over 1,000 people had signed an online petition against the demolition
of the building including the Victorian Society and the Bangor Civic Society.
However, should it be decided that the student dwellings would be approved, the
Committee was encouraged to include a condition to re-use the building and not
demolish it.
·
the Chair was requested to accept the petition.
(c) Following receipt of legal
advice, the Chair refused to accept the petition as it should have been part of
the planning information file.
(ch) Taking advantage of the
opportunity to speak, the applicant’s representative noted:
·
That
this was an application for 27 flats which was very different to the high
number of very small accommodation built in other parts of the city and that it
would include self-contained studios with the top floor including flats that
would be targeted for mature students and not first year students.
·
High quality student accommodation would contribute to the local
housing stock by allowing students who would otherwise occupy the rooms to
leave those rooms that would provide a low cost accommodation for local people
to rent.
·
The observation of the Town Council was noted regarding the
development in a residential area but it would get rid of a noisy nightclub.
·
The Railway Club which used the building had now moved to a new site.
·
A strict management strategy to deal with students who could cause
nuisance for local neighbours was ensured.
·
The Archaeological Trust had suggested conservation or making a
record of the building and that the applicant was happy to offer a recording strategy
but that preserving the building was not an option as there were serious
structural defects and it could not be sufficiently insulated to modern
standards.
·
The Government encouraged use of brownfield sites for developments
and that this site was on the outskirts of an industrial area.
·
Redevelopment was a positive solution to what was currently a
dilapidated and dormant building.
(d) The Local Member (not a member of this
Planning committee) noted the following main points:
·
That Bangor City Council objected to the application based on
overdevelopment.
·
The Conservation Officer noted that there was a history to the
building and a connection with the railway and suggested that the applicant
should consider preserving the building and converting it rather than
demolishing it.
·
Disappointment was expressed as no effort had been made to
preserve the building as it was a beautiful building with features that
deserved to be preserved and were essentially important and that the building
had a local historical and cultural value.
·
A public meeting had been held but it was understood that only one
individual had attended as people were not aware of the meeting.
·
Over 1,000 people had signed a petition and this should not be
disregarded.
·
The majority of students lived in the Deiniol
/ Menai ward and the student provision should not be extended to every part of
the city and should the Railway Bridge not be designated as the limit?
·
A sufficient number of accommodation and halls had been constructed
to meet the figures designated by the Inspector in 2015.
(dd) In response to the above, the Senior Planning
Service Manager explained:
·
Historical matters and building status – that consideration had
been given to this by officers but following considerations after the CADW
investigation it did not fall within listing criteria or within a Conservation
area, therefore, a planning permission to demolish the building was not
required.
·
In terms of the need for student accommodation, reference was made
to the tables in the report and specifically to table 4 and it could be seen
that there was a need for this type of development to help meet the need.
(e)
It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application, contrary to the
planning officers’ recommendation on the grounds of overdevelopment and impact
on residential amenities.
(f) The
following points were noted in favour of the proposal to refuse:
·
That it was a historical building in terms of the railway industry
and it would lose the character of the City;
·
Disappointment that no effort had been made to convert the
building;
·
Over 1,000 of Bangor residents objected to the application and
there was a need to listen to the voice of the people and the local Member;
·
It disagreed with figures in the report relating to the demand for
student accommodation in Bangor and that this should be supported with robust
evidence in future;
·
Student accommodation should not be spread across the City.
(ff) In response to the observation regarding
the demand for student accommodation, the Senior Planning Service Manager noted
that the process of developing the Joint Local Development Plan was ongoing and
that it would address policies involving student accommodation and houses of multiple
occupation and that the information within the report was the current evidence
as part of that process.
RESOLVED: To
refuse the application contrary to the planning officers’ recommendation as the
proposed development would be an overdevelopment of the site and that it would
have an effect on the residential amenities of neighbouring residents.
Supporting documents: