Demolition of existing building and
construction of a 3 storey residential building comprising of 28 extra care
flats (16 two-bedroom flats and 12 one-bedroom flats, ancillary ground floor
uses including communal facilities, office, plant room, bin store and buggy
store) and associated car parking and landscaping
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Dylan Bullard
Minutes:
Demolition
of existing building and construction of a 3 storey residential building
comprising of 28 extra care flats (16 two-bedroom flats and 12 one-bedroom
flats, ancillary ground floor uses including communal facilities, office, plant
room, bin store and buggy store) and associated car parking and landscaping.
a)
The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of
the application and noted that the site was located within the town of Pwllheli and within a Conservation Area. It was explained that the proposal was described as extra care
flats for those aged over 55 years, and the floor plans showed that all the
flats were self-contained with a bedroom(s), bathroom, lounge and kitchen, as
well as a communal lounge and relatively small kitchen attached to it.
It was highlighted that the Adults, Health and Well-being
Department had confirmed that they were supportive of the application and that
the demand for this type of provision was likely to increase over the next 20
years, with Pwllheli identified as a growth area. It was noted that ADRA was the applicant and that the
information submitted with the application highlighted that 100% of the units
would be affordable, which meant that the proposal satisfied the requirements
of policy TAI 15. It was
reported that the Housing Strategic Unit had also confirmed that the
proposal met the requirements of the area, and that the Housing Association was
a partner for this development. The property also met
Development Quality Requirements and had been included within a programme to
receive a Social Housing Grant.
In
the context of general and residential amenities, it was
highlighted that the rear elevation of the new building was partly
two-storeys and partly three-storeys and faced the rear of the Penlon Llŷn housing terrace.
It was explained that amended plans related to windows
and the relationship between the development and existing houses as well as
some of the distances between them and any impact on the amenities of nearby
residents. It was noted that it was proposed to use
the area between the new building and the boundary of the housing terrace as a
communal garden with a car park located to the east of the building being
retained for parking uses.
In
the context of open spaces, it was highlighted that policy ISA5 confirmed the
need to assess the area's needs for providing appropriate open spaces as a result of the proposed development (more than 10 living
units). However, in accordance with the wording of the Supplementary Planning
Guidance, there was no need to request a contribution towards an open space in
this context.
In
considering biodiversity matters, it was noted that a
Habitats Survey had been received with the Biodiversity Unit confirming that
the report had dealt with the majority of biodiversity concerns on the site. In
order to be able to support the proposal, it was added that there was a need to
confirm the recommendations and mitigation measures within the Mitigation Statement which was to include details regarding the
demolition and roof removal method to reduce the impact on bats and birds.
Timing and specific details regarding the type of bat and nesting boxes to be
included in the new building and their location would need to be included,
along with amended plans. The Mitigation Statement would be included as a
condition.
It was considered that the proposal was acceptable and that it
complied with the requirements of the relevant local and national
policies. As acceptable amended plans had been received, it was noted that the recommendation had
been amended to approve subject to relevant conditions.
b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector to
the application noted the following main points:
·
The amended plan did not respond to the concerns in
full. It was accepted that a reasonable solution had
been submitted, but a further improvement was possible, especially to both
floors overlooking houses in Stryd Llyn.
·
Some principles were unacceptable - the plan was
oppressive, an over-development of the site
·
Overlooking concerns - some houses within 17m of the
development
·
The plan could be more sympathetic
·
Insufficient parking provisions - although the report
had noted that parking for 22 would be sufficient, the figure, in reality,
could be approximately 56
·
A request to the Committee to defer the application in
order to hold further discussions with the developer to seek solutions.
c)
Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicants' agent noted the following main
points:
·
The
development offered 28 affordable units
·
Adra had responded strategically to the increasing
demand for such units - similar models had been developed in Bangor and Porthmadog - an opportunity now for Pwllheli
to receive provision
·
Considerations
had been given to relieving the concerns of objectors in terms of matters
relating to overlooking and visual amenities - it was added that it was an
urban development and, therefore, overlooking was likely
·
There
was an intention to improve and widen the pavements in order to facilitate safe
access to the town / shops
ch) It was proposed and seconded to defer the
decision for the following reasons:
·
the
principle and the project was acceptable but further discussions needed to be
held with the agent to resolve the concerns of Stryd
Pen Llyn residents
·
a
further response was required to overlooking and parking concerns
·
an
opportunity to seek further information and to make further enquiries
·
need
to ensure that every element was fully considered and that there was no need
for haste
d)
In response to the observations, the Planning Manager
expressed that a low number of local concerns had been
received given that the proposal was an urban scheme. It was added that
a distance of 17m was acceptable (between the boundaries of Stryd
Llyn houses) for a town centre and that
some overlooking would be unavoidable. It was highlighted
that the Highways Department had no objection to the proposal and that the
design included parking on an appropriate level for the proposed use. It was also noted that the developer had been requested to
improve the pedestrian links between the site and the town centre.
In response to the
proposal to defer, the Assistant Head of Environment expressed that there was
no advantage to deferring the application as the application satisfied planning
matters and met the requirements. It was added that
discussions had been held between the Planning Service and the applicant, along
with a public consultation.
dd) During the ensuing discussion,
the following main observations were noted by members:
·
Welcomed the fact that the units were 100% affordable
·
The site was a suitable location for this type of
development - convenient to the town and, therefore, negated the need to have a
car
·
The actual existing building was oppressive
·
The proposal responded to the need for extra care
housing
e)
A vote was taken on the proposal to defer the
application in order to hold further discussions with the applicant
The proposal fell
f)
It was proposed and seconded to approve the
application in accordance with the recommendation
RESOLVED to approve the application
subject to relevant conditions:
1.
Five years
2.
In accordance with
the amended plans
3.
Slate
4.
External materials
to be agreed
5.
Removal of rights
to install new windows
6.
External lighting
plan and plan for internal stairwell areas
7.
Obscured windows
8.
Drainage Plan
(SUDS)
9.
Biodiversity
mitigation statement and location of bat and nesting boxes
10. Affordable housing condition for individuals aged
over 55 years
11. Highway conditions
12. Hours of demolition/working
13. Public Protection Conditions (if needed)
14. Demolition management plan
Supporting documents: