Agenda item

Conversion and change of use of rear part of former Debenhams shop into 6 living units (5 x 1 bedroom and 1 x 2 bedroom)

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Steve Collings

Link to relevant background documents

Conversion and change of use of the rear section of the former Debenhams store to create six residential units (5 x 1 bedroom and 1 x 2 bedroom).

a)    The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that it had been deferred at the January 2020 Committee in order to receive additional information regarding the rent prices of the residential units. It was explained that it was a full application for the change of use of the rear section of the building, which was formerly the Debenhams store in Bangor, to form six self-contained residential units, along with minor alterations to the building. It was noted that there were no concerns in relation to amenities or transport matters. 

Following the deferral of the application in order to obtain information on the rent prices of the affordable units, further information had been received by the agent and the Joint Planning Policy Unit. Policy TAI 15 of the LDP sought to ensure an appropriate provision of affordable housing in the Plan area, and the threshold for affordable housing in Bangor was 20%.  The open market pricing report stated that the open market prices of all the units would be lower than the affordable level of £50,000 in the area, and therefore all the units would fall within the definition of affordable although only 1.2 affordable units would be required. Consequently, it was emphasised that in this case, no legal agreement or planning condition would be required to ensure the provision of affordable housing, since the units would be affordable in any case. It was explained that the location, size and type of units meant that the market prices were affordable, and that the proposal therefore complied with the relevant policies, which were TAI 15 in the LDP and the SPG.

It was explained that, based on what was noted in paragraph 3.3.2 of Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Affordable Housing' (April 2019), householders were expected to pay 25% or less of their gross income on rent for units described as affordable. On the basis of all the information from the report, 25% of the Bangor median income was £464 per month. It was reported that the agent had confirmed that five of the six units provided had an open market rent of £400 per month. Although the median income varied between wards, it was explained that the proposal needed to be considered in relation to the median income of Bangor in its entirety. It was explained that a development in one location could meet the demand for housing within th whole city due to the easy and natural movement between wards, and the proximity of wards to each other (it was noted that Pentir ward had been excluded from the figures on the grounds that it included areas outside Bangor). It was reported that the applicant had provided information based on the Gwynedd and Anglesey local housing market assessment, which stated that there was a current need for 1- and 2-bedroom flats in the area, and this was confirmed by the comments submitted by the Strategic Housing Unit.

b)    A proposal to approve the application was put forward and seconded.

c)    A proposal was put forward and seconded to approve the application with a planning condition to restrict the rent of one of the units to an affordable level for the following reasons:

·         The median income for Deiniol ward was the appropriate figure in order to assess income, rather than the median income of Bangor in its entirety, as the salaries in Deiniol ward were lower.

d)   During the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were made by members:

·         Concern was expressed that the developer could accept a higher price for the units if the market offered a higher price, which was within their right, and therefore a condition needed to be imposed on the permission to ensure that the units were affordable.

·         It was argued that the median income per ward was the appropriate figure in order to assess income, as the salaries in Deiniol ward were lower, and the guidance did not state that the median income for the wards in their entirety needed to be calculated. It was noted that £404 was the figure for affordable rent for Deiniol ward specifically, rather than £464.

·         It was noted that housing associations did not differentiate between wards when calculating the median income.

·         Attention was drawn to the significant differences in prices within Bangor, with some areas being more prosperous and expensive than others due to their location.

·         Agreement was expressed with views of officers that the appropriate figure to be used was the median income for Bangor in its entirety, as this facilitated the construction of more affordable houses in the more expensive wards, as well as the poorer wards. Concern was expressed that differentiating between the wards restricted the levels of affordable houses in the more expensive wards.

·         Although this referred to demand for housing in Bangor, it was noted that the Committee had previously approved planning permission for developments that were still to be built. It was further suggested that this meant that the assessment of demand was not always accurate, and it was hoped that more evidence of the demand would be provided in future. A further explanation was requested about what would happen if the demand for housing changed prior to a development being built. In response, it was noted that it was likely that demand for housing would remain high and that it would not be fully met.

e)    In response to the members’ observations, the officers emphasised that there was clear and robust evidence to show that the market ensured that the units and rent were affordable in any case, without further control or intervention by means of a planning condition. It was explained that if members were not convinced that the rent would be affordable, clear evidence would have to be submitted to support this. Following a thorough assessment in the report, it was reported that it was not likely that imposing a condition to restrict the rent would meet the validity criteria for planning conditions as it was not necessary or reasonable, and on these grounds the officers could not support the case if the application was rejected and subsequently went to appeal.

f)   Members voted against the amendment.

g)  Members voted in favour of the original proposal.

RESOLVED

1.      Five years

2.      In accordance with the plans

3.      Agreement on external materials

4.      No windows to be installed apart from those shown

5.      Welsh Water Sewerage

6.      Work to commence outside the breeding season (May-September)

7.      Provision of a bin store prior to the units being occupied, to be retained for that purpose.