Agenda item

Full application for the construction of 4 self-contained living units, creation of estate road with associated services

 

LOCAL MEMBER:    COUNCILLOR JASON WAYNE PARRY

 

Link to relevant background documents

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