Full application for the construction of 4 self-contained living units, creation of estate road with associated services
LOCAL MEMBER: COUNCILLOR JASON WAYNE PARRY
Minutes:
Full application
to erect four self contained
living units to be used as temporary accommodation for the needs of vulnerable
individuals; creation of access road together with associated resources.
Attention was drawn to the
late observations form that had been received
a) The
Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application and noted that
the proposed development site was located on part of the former Canolfan Segonitwm site and
within the development boundaries of the town of Caernarfon, designated in the
Local Development Plan as an Urban Service Centre. It was highlighted
that the last use of the site was by Ysgol Pendalar and Canolfan Segontiwm (a Day Centre for adults with learning
disabilities). It was
noted that the site's use ended some years ago and all the buildings had
been demolished leaving only concrete floors in place.
It was explained that the proposal was to erect four units /
living pods designed and provided to satisfy the needs of vulnerable
individuals. It was added that the units would be temporary accommodation to
assist users to stabilise their lives and move forward to more
permanent accommodation. It was
noted that the pods would be in the Council's ownership and managed as short term accommodation via the Council, in partnership
with a registered social landlord.
It was considered
that the size (fairly small one-storey), location,
elevations and external finishes of these units were acceptable and designed
for a specific purpose and they would not cause a detrimental visual
impact. It was
considered that the distances between the new buildings and the boundary
with the rear of Llys Talar
houses was acceptable and would not have a substantial detrimental effect on
the amenities of nearby residents. It was acknowledged that observations had been received from
residents of Ffordd Cwstenin,
Ffordd Llanbeblig and Stryd y Faenol in the form of a
petition that was concerned about the impact of the development on their
amenities and the area in general.
In the context of
highway matters, it was reported that it was proposed
to undertake improvements to the road including widening the existing road and
to create a footpath together with an area to turn in towards the units. It was added that
the site was in an accessible location, approximately 400-500m from the town
centre whilst the layout and design would ensure access to a wide range of
users. The Transportation Unit did not have any objection to the proposal.
In the context of
archaeological matters, it was noted that the site was located near the Roman
fort of Segontium which was a scheduled monument. It was highlighted
that discussions had taken place regarding the impact of the proposed
development on the scheduled monument. As a result of
the observations and concerns raised by CADW and the Gwynedd Archaeological
Planning Service, a full second consultation was conducted with the specialist
bodies and responses were received with conditions for consideration.
Having considered
all relevant planning matters, including local and national policies and
guidance, as well as all the observations received, the proposal was considered
acceptable and in compliance with the requirements of the relevant policies.
b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member noted the following main points:-
·
There had been a lack of consultation with local
residents - a petition had been signed expressing their
objection. Not enough attention was given to the petition in the report (5.15 - only a
sentence).
·
A number of enquiries had been made
at Siop Gwynedd in Caernarfon and to the Planning Service, however, no
discussions had taken place / responses received. Due to the lack of consultation and
information, the local residents had to depend on the information in the press.
·
The local residents favoured good quality / affordable
housing.
·
Several questions remained unanswered - 'vulnerable
people'? what were the criteria?, security matters?,
24 hour care? - a
lack of understanding and information regarding the proposal.
·
Historically, the area had suffered from anti-social
behaviour.
·
No effort had been made to
listen to and discuss the concerns of the area's residents.
·
What would happen to the value of the houses opposite?
c)
It was proposed and seconded to approve the application
ch) An
amendment was proposed to defer the decision for the following reasons:
·
Undertake local
consultation
·
Conduct a site
inspection visit
d)
During the ensuing
discussion, the following
main observations were noted by members:
· The plan was innovative
and the principle was promising
·
The observations / responses of the public
consultation had been included in the report
· The Community
Council supported the application
·
There was funding from the Government to support the
initiative - concern that this funding would be lost (end of March 2020 time
schedule)
·
No objection to the plan, but a suggestion to visit the
site (entrance issues)
· It was accepted that a statutory consultation had taken place, however,
it was suggested that a local consultation / discussion should be conducted as a matter of courtesy to local residents or a discussion with the Local Member.
· It was suggested that there should be a re-consultation to alleviate concerns
· More information was needed about the proposal's use and site
management
· If it was to be approved, the Housing Department should conduct further discussions with the local community
dd) In response to a comment that further
consultation was required, the Assistant Head of the Environment noted that a
statutory consultation had taken place and the comments and responses received
had been included in the report (5.9 - 5.15).
It was added that the report clearly reflected
that proposal's use to satisfy the needs of the homeless. It was noted that
there was firm evidence of need.
e) A vote was taken
on the amendment
RESOLVED to defer the decision in order to
· Discuss the application's principles and the community's concerns with the Local Member applicant and planning
officers
· Conduct a site inspection visit
·
Receive further information
regarding site management
·
Receive information on screening methods
for entrance from neighbouring houses
Supporting documents: