Application
for the conversion of a public house to 5 flats together with rear extension
and parking area
LOCAL
MEMBER: Councillor Linda Ann Wyn Jones
Decision:
To defer the
decision in order to receive more information about drainage matters
Minutes:
Attention was drawn to the late observations form that had been
received - in response to observations from the Local Member, consultation had
taken place with the Council's Flood Risk Management Unit, and a swift response
had been received. It was noted that the Department
had no knowledge of the situation, although it was intended to investigate the
complaint. No timetable had yet been set for this work.
a)
The Planning Manager elaborated on the background
of the application, and noted that the application had been
submitted to the Planning Committee on 02.03.2020 when it had been
decided to arrange a site visit for members. In the meantime, it was reported that the applicant had informed the Council
that he had submitted an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate due to a lack of
decision by the Council on the application (no date yet received).
Members were reminded that this was an application to convert a
public house into five residential, self-contained flats, along with the
creation of parking spaces and an entrance.
It was noted that the site was located within
the development boundary of Blaenau Ffestiniog and
that the use of the building as a public house had ceased since early 2017. The
proposal would involve internal changes to create the flats on the three
floors. The exterior changes were restricted to the side extension and the
slight alteration of the layout of the ground floor window and door openings on
the rear elevation.
Additional
photographs and a video were shown as it had not been
possible to undertake a site visit due to Covid-19 restrictions.
Policy TAI9
permits the sub-division of existing properties into self-contained flats
provided they conform to the relevant criteria: it was not
considered that the proposal to convert the building into five flats
would be contrary to the policy aims of TAI 9.
Reference was made to Policy TAI15 that stated that every development
was required to achieve an appropriate mix in terms of tenure, types and sizes
of affordable housing, which is supported by Policy TAI 8 and the SPG: Housing
Mix. It should be noted that the Strategic Housing
Unit stated that there was a recognised need for one and two bedroom flats in
the town. It was considered that the amended
application provided an appropriate mix of accommodation in an existing
building that met a recognised need for housing in the town.
Policy TAI 15
(Threshold of Affordable Housing and their Distribution) stated an expectation
that at least 0.4 of the units should be affordable, in accordance with the
information submitted. Information had been received
from the applicant stating that he had investigated purchase/rental prices
within a one-mile radius of the site as part of the development. Although the
officers did not disagree with the prices, the
valuation was not based on the Red Book, and there were other minor
deficiencies in the information submitted. In the circumstances, it was considered that the application could be approved
subject to imposing a condition to agree on affordability matters for one of
the units before issuing any permission.
In the context of
the visual, and general and residential amenities, it was
noted that these had been fully assessed, and that no objections had
been received in relation to these matters. It was added
that the Transportation Unit had no objection to the proposal, although it
recommended that appropriate conditions should be imposed on any permission.
Having considered all the relevant matters, including local and national
policies and guidance, as well as local objections, it was
considered that the proposal was acceptable and that it satisfied the
requirements of the relevant policies.
b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local
Member made the following points:-
·
She apologised for the information that had come to
hand at the last minute, expressing concern about the recent flooding on the
application site.
·
The former owner of the Wynnes
had drawn her attention to a water culvert located under the existing extension
at the rear of the building.
·
Flooding had occurred approximately 20 years ago on
the site, and again in August 2020.
·
Welsh Water had not yet had an opportunity to
investigate further
·
Local people were concerned, as some of them
recalled the past flooding
c)
It was proposed and seconded to approve the
application.
d)
During the ensuing
discussion, the following observations were made by members:
· It was noted that more information was needed
regarding the flooding prior to making a decision
· The principle of
the development had been approved, but further investigation was needed
regarding the concerns about flooding
· The area needed
houses, not flats
· The location was
unsuitable for a house in multiple occupation
· The Council's
Drainage Department should investigate the matter, not Welsh Water
· Assurance was
required that the building had a fire escape
· There were
insufficient parking spaces for the number of residents who would occupy the
flats
· Concern about the
outstanding appeal on the application
e)
In response to the comments, the Planning Manager
noted:
-
Safety matters were within the remit of the
Building Control Unit
-
The Transportation Unit considered that six parking
spaces were sufficient for the site - the site was accessible and there was a
good bus service
-
The Planning Unit had consulted the Council's
Drainage Department about the flooding matters
-
He was confident that the Committee would meet
again before the date of the appeal
f)
An amendment was proposed to defer the decision in
order to receive more information about drainage matters
g)
A vote was taken on the
amendment.
RESOLVED: To defer
the decision in order to receive more information about drainage matters
Supporting documents: