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
Minutes:
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.
Supporting documents: