Change of use of part of second floor of Block A into 6 residential units together with changing the use of the ground floor of Block C into a car park for 23 cars.
Local Member: Councillor Ioan C. Thomas
Minutes:
Change of use of part of
second floor of Block A into six residential units together with changing the
use of the ground floor of Block C into a car park for 23 cars.
(a) The
Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application and
noted that the principle of this development was acceptable as mixed use had
already been established on the site.
It was
noted that the applicant had stated that it would be impractical to provide
affordable houses as part of this latest proposal as the prospective owners of
the units would have to contribute towards the management costs of the site and
also considering the nature of the occupancy of existing units in Victoria
Dock. In terms of the development’s
viability, it was not considered appropriate to include an affordable element
in the development.
It was
noted that the local member supported the application.
The
development complied with the GUDP for the reasons noted in the report.
(b) It was
proposed and seconded to refuse the application contrary to the officers’
recommendation because approving the application would set a dangerous
precedent in terms of reducing the number of holiday homes in a site designated
for another use.
The
Senior Planning Service Manager noted that applications had to be determined
based on the evidence submitted. He added
that if members were of the opinion that insufficient information had been
submitted in the context of the affordable housing provision then a further
explanation could be sought from the applicant.
An
amendment was made to defer the application in order to receive further
justification in the context of the affordable housing provision as part of the
development. The amendment was seconded.
(c) During the
ensuing discussion, the following main points were noted:
·
That
affordable housing had been promised when the site had been developed as part
of the original plans; however, these had not been realised;
·
That
there was a need for affordable units;
·
Concern
that it was noted that the development was not viable to accommodate affordable
houses considering that the GUDP noted the need for an element of affordable
houses in such developments;
·
That
making such developments exempt from providing an affordable element was
dangerous as any developer could justify not including an affordable element by
saying that a maintenance fee was charged;
·
The
need for an affordable provision as part of the development or if it was not
viable, the need for a financial sum to satisfy affordable housing needs on an
alternative site.
(ch) The Senior
Planning Service Manager noted that there were some circumstances where it was
not viable to include an affordable element in developments but that the
applicant had to submit evidence.
In
response to a member’s question regarding the additional parking spaces, the
Development Control Manager noted that it was believed that they were for the
site as a whole rather than specifically for this development. A member noted that there was no parking provision for
the surgery located on the site and that the additional parking spaces were to
be supported.
A vote
was taken on the amendment.
RESOLVED
to defer the application in order to receive further justification in relation
to the affordable housing provision as part of the development.
Supporting documents: