Agenda item

Residential Development of 30 Units (to include 12 affordable units) together with infrastructure, parking spaces, access, footpaths and amenity area.

 

LOCAL MEMBER; Councillor Gareth A Roberts

 

Link to relevant background papers

DECISION

 

·                     To refer the application to a cooling off period

·                     To refuse the application for the following reasons

 

•           Lack of need for housing

•           Linguistic Assessment is insufficient

•           Flooding matters

•           Land contamination matters

•           Transportation matters – Penrhos Road junction and also Penyffridd Road

•           Insufficient provision / contribution of open spaces

 

a)    The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application and explained that the proposal was located in Penrhosgarnedd and was a site previously used by Bangor University as a horticulture field centre.  Currently, it was a plot of derelict and abandoned land that was overgrown and the site of the former field centre building, demolished some time ago.  Residential housing surround the site, in the form of an estate and the site was within the Bangor development boundary.

 

It was reported that the construction of housing on a site within the development boundary was acceptable.  In the context of the application, it was highlighted that the proposed density of the housing development was a little lower than expected, however, bearing in mind the limitations of the site that included the need to create a wildlife corridor, retaining the copse, providing open amenity spaces together with safeguarding an area for land drainage, it was considered that providing 30 units would be acceptable for the site.  

 

It was highlighted that Policy TAI 1 stated that housing would be delivered through housing allocations together with suitable windfall sites within the development boundary. It was true that the land in question had not been allocated for housing, but was entirely located within the development boundary and there was an element of recognition regarding the growth of Bangor via windfall sites.    

 

It was noted that the Bangor indicative supply level over the term of the Local Development Plan was 969. In accordance with more recent figures (as a result of regular monitoring), that considered completed units, the number in the current land bank and the number in the application, the capacity/indicative target for the site was 10 units. To provide more than the indicative target, it was explained that the applicant had to submit a justification that satisfied the Council that the proposal addressed the recognised need for housing. In this case, 12 of the proposed units would be affordable housing (a higher percentage than policy requirement) together with 18 units to be sold on the open market. It was noted that the housing mix statement corresponded to the need and the Council's Strategic Housing Unit had confirmed that the 30 units were on the list of contingency schemes to receive Welsh Government Community Housing grant bearing in mind that such a development was a priority.     

 

It was also noted that the applicant had stated there was potential for some open market housing to be offered as intermediate rented housing or as an equity sharing scheme that would increase the number of accredited affordable housing that would be offered. It was added that there was an element of certainty that the proposal would be realised soon and address the recognised need for housing in the area.  It was reported that the plan was of high quality with the feeling and form of an estate that would provide housing for families with plenty of surrounding green areas. 

 

Attention was drawn to the main objections - concerns regarding the additions in traffic and access, flooding, land drainage and pollution levels.  Although the Transportation Unit recognised the concerns, they had no objection to the proposal.  It was highlighted that flooding matters had received attention and the comments regarding the water pipe were recognised (conditions imposed by Welsh Water and Natural Resources Wales). It was added that the Public Protection Unit had offered observations concerning pollution issues and qualified officers had stated that it was possible to control pollution by imposing planning conditions.  

 

The observations of the Welsh Language Unit on the development were received and they were of the view that the proposal would have a neutral or non-significant negative impact on the Welsh language on the grounds that the development would not represent a major change in the city's existing position in terms of the Welsh language. 

 

Consequently, it was considered that the proposal to develop 30 houses of two and three bedrooms, with 12 of these as affordable housing, was a positive response to the various housing needs that had been identified in the area.   Based on the above assessment, it was not considered that the proposal was contrary to local or national policies and there was no material planning matter that outweighed the policy considerations.

 

b)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted the following points:-

·         He represented the residents of Pen y Ffridd

·         Gors Du was the area's original name - it was extremely wet land with a fault in the rock where water rises 

·         The road would not be able to cope with more traffic as a result of doubling the size of the street.  Each of the new houses would have one car, if not two, and everyone would try to squeeze in and out via Ffordd Pen-y-ffridd, including emergency vehicles.

·         The plan would remove four parking spaces that exist on the street, and would remove a plot of green land the Council itself had retained and carefully planted since 1958.

·         There would be an increase in cars that would add to the traffic levels on Ffordd Penrhos

·         There were no objections to social housing, but there was no need to justify building on every available plot of land, suitable or otherwise.  Building homes should alleviate community problems, not add to them.

·         Objected the element of open market private housing that was part of the application - it was not possible to control this

·         The land had not been allocated for residential development in the Unitary Development Plan - there was already plenty of land in the Bangor area earmarked for this purpose.

 

c)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following points:-

·         The proposal addressed the need for open market housing and affordable housing in the area

·         It was proposed to develop 12 affordable houses, representing 40% of the units on the site

·         Of the 18 open market units, it was proposed to target local families who have the means to get a mortgage, to live locally - addressing the needs of local people

·         In addition, five units would be available via the Rent to Own scheme to enable eligible families to rent a house with the option to buy in the future.

·         In response to several concerns regarding the suitability of the existing road, transportation consultants were commissioned to respond to traffic concerns and the results of that work predicted there was sufficient capacity to take more additional traffic - the Transportation Unit accepted the result.

·         16 parking spaces had been included for the residents of Pen y Ffridd

 

ch)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following points:-

 

·         That public meetings had been held, and 74 dwellings had signed a petition in objection. 

·           The plan offered poor access that would add to traffic levels on Ffordd Penrhos

·           Pollution and historical flooding on the site - the land should not be disturbed

·           The access road was not of a sufficient length to be considered as a 'carriage way' - why had this not been addressed in the assessment?   

·           Social housing should be for local people and not for the open market

·           Other sites were available

 

d)    Taking advantage of the right to submit observations, the neighbouring local member noted the following points via a statement read by Councillor Elwyn Edwards:- 

 

·         She, as a number of local residents objected to the development

·         She supported the idea of creating affordable homes in Bangor and realised the need, but not on this site

·         There was a lack of suitable access to the new estate

·         The location of the new footpath to be created at the gable-end of an existing property at Pen y Ffridd would impair the residential amenities of the occupants of that property.   It would be necessary to relocate the footpath further away from the curtilage of the residential property.

·         It was an example of over development in this part of Bangor.

·         It was not appropriate to build more housing without considering how services would be provided such as surgeries, sewerage, water, roads and schools 

·         The language assessment was insufficient and dated

·         The site was a habitat for wildlife, birds, animals and wild plants - a very scarce resource in Bangor now.

·         Concern regarding privacy, as well as disturbance, noise and traffic during the construction period

 

dd)     It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application

 

e)     During the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:

·           That Penrhos Road was extremely busy / full capacity / the situation was getting out of hand

·           Factors such as redundancies at Bangor University, no Wylfa B and a reduction in the number of students as a result of Brexit and Covid, had not been considered in the data.

·           It was a linguistic assessment that had been submitted not a language statement - the report was defective

·           Would there be any control over open market housing?

·           The report did not report sufficiently on the condition of the soil / contaminated land - the health and safety of the area's residents had to be considered and that the site was safe to live on

·           The size of the access road was insufficient - too narrow

·           It was necessary to have an area for children to play on the estate that included equipment

·           The site was completely unsuitable

·           There was a long list of people waiting for affordable housing within the development boundary

·           Additional parking spaces had been included in the plans

 

f)     The Assistant Head of Environment and Planning noted that there were risks to the Council linked to each of the reasons for refusal proposed. He highlighted that the report addressed the concerns raised and members were reminded of the need for evidence of the reasons for refusal, noting the evidence in the report and the responses received from Council experts in the Transportation, Public Protection Services, Strategic Housing Unit, Water and Environment Unit as well as other external bodies such as Natural Resources Wales etc.  He stated that the application would have to be referred to a cooling-off period in order to submit a report that would highlight the risks to the Council on appeal, if the application was refused for several reasons that could not be evidenced.  He also highlighted that every reason for refusal included associated costs if the application went to appeal and the proposer and seconder would be expected to defend the appeal and the reasons for refusal on behalf of the Council.

 

g)    In response to transportation concerns, the Senior Development Control Officer highlighted that the width of the access road would meet with requirements although accepting a change in standards over the years.  It was explained that when it was clear, the width of the road was sufficient.  He added that the increase in congestion and the addition to Ffordd Penrhos traffic would be for short periods only.  He also noted that the site was close to workplaces and therefore there may be less dependency on car use.

 

h)    In response to a request from the Monitoring Officer for members to offer reasons for refusal, the following were listed: 

·         Lack of need

·         Insufficient Language Assessment

·         Land Pollution / contamination

·         Flooding

·         Transportation / access

·         Insufficient provision of children’s play areas

 

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

To refer the application to a cooling off period

To refuse the application for the following reasons

 

·         Lack of need for housing

·         Insufficient Linguistic Assessment

·         Flooding matters

·         Land contamination matters

·         Transportation matters - Penrhos Road junction and also Pen-y-ffridd Road

·         Insufficient provision / contribution of open spaces