Outline application for a residential development comprising up to 366 dwelling units, with associated
access road, parking and ancillary facilities.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth Anthony Roberts
Minutes:
An outline application to construct up
to 366 living units with associated developments including an access road,
parking spaces and ancillary resources. Noted – it would be possible to
include a condition for phased development over a long period, and reference
was made to the late observations received, that referred to this.
The members had visited the site on 5.11.2015
(a)
The Development Control Manager elaborated on
the background of the application and emphasised that the development was an outline
application, with only the details of the access forming part of the
application. It was noted that matters such as appearance, landscaping, layout
and scale and the exact numbers (up to a maximum of 366), were all reserved
matters and would therefore be the subject of a further application to include
these details.
It was explained that the site was located within the development boundaries of the city of Bangor that had been designated as a sub-regional centre in the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan (July 2009). The site had specifically been designated for a residential development; was a site that had been previously partially developed by Bangor University as an agricultural research site and which was now empty (the buildings having been demolished and disposed of). It was noted that its location was relatively hidden from nearby public viewpoints due to residential housing and Ysbyty Gwynedd with its position on elevated land above Caernarfon Road concealing it to an extent.
A number of objections and a petition had been received expressing
concern about the impact of the proposed development. It was noted that the
most contentious issues in relation to this application were the entrance, the
access road and the increase in traffic flow. In terms of accessibility, it was
felt that the site was appropriate in terms of its indicative location and
layout, and that the principle was acceptable in terms of policy requirements.
The Council’s Transportation Unit had originally
expressed considerable concern regarding the development and its impact on the
local roads network and the lack of a complete through road from the direction
of Caernarfon Road to Penrhos Road, as had been noted
in the Development Brief. It was noted that there would only be
pedestrian and cycle routes to Penrhos Road. Lengthy
discussions had been held between the developer and the representatives of the
Transportation Unit and additional information had been submitted in response
as a result of these discussions. Based
on this additional information, as well as their own further investigations,
the Transportation Unit were satisfied with the
proposal.
It was noted that matters regarding archaeology, trees, biodiversity, infrastructure and flooding could be acceptable with the inclusion of relevant planning conditions, and in the context of educational matters that the education contribution satisfied the educational requirements of the proposal. By receiving a financial contribution towards improving the area’s educational facilities (with the exact details to be agreed with the Education Department), the requirements of the relevant policy could be satisfied and the timing of the contribution would be arranged within the 106 agreement drawn up to ensure this.
In the context of language and community matters, it was noted that a language and community statement had been submitted although it was not mandatory to receive an assessment for a site that had been designated for housing in the Unitary Plan, as an assessment had been completed when the site was originally designated. A statement had been submitted in this case due to the scale of the development and the publishing of the recent census results, and it was considered that it would be appropriate for the developer to submit a statement for it to be formally assessed by the Joint Planning Policy Unit.
On the whole it was considered that the nature of the city of Bangor, in terms of the size of the population, linguistic pattern, the variety of services and facilities available, student shift, etc., meant that the development should not have an excessive detrimental impact on the Welsh language. In order to ensure positive impacts on the Welsh language, it was suggested that specific mitigation measures should be implemented such as a phased development, marketing houses locally for a specific period, Welsh signage, support to local skill training enterprises etc.
It was noted that the application was acceptable, and that it complied with local and national policies and guidelines as noted in the report, subject to relevant conditions. It was recommended that the Committee delegated powers to the Senior Planning Manager to approve the application subject to signing a 106 agreement to include 30% of the proportion of the houses on site as affordable housing and receiving financial contributions towards improving local education facilities.
Attention was drawn to the additional observations that had been received.
(b)
Taking advantage of
the right to speak, an objector to the application noted the following main
points:-
·
The development was
too large and unnecessary
·
An artificial village
/ overdevelopment for commuters located near the A55
·
Penrhosgarnedd was a Welsh speaking area and therefore the development would
have a detrimental impact on the Welsh Language – the only part where Welsh was
regularly spoken
·
The language
assessment was too general and superficial and was based on the 2001 census.
The company did not appear to be at all concerned about the language. It was
futile to suggest safeguarding Welshness through
offering Welsh signage, contributions etc.
·
The existing local
infrastructure could not cope with the scale of the development – there was
already congestion on the area's roads
·
The proposed development
was evidently contrary to Strategic Policy 1 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development
Plan 2009 as it would have an unacceptable and undetermined impact on the Welsh
language or on the cultural character of communities
·
Contrary to policy A2 - safeguard social, linguistic or
cultural solidarity within communities against significant change due to the
size, scale or location of proposals.
·
Valid reasons for
refusal
(c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following main points:-
· The policy satisfied the requirements of the Unitary Development Plan
· The development addressed the need for housing in Bangor
· The site was suitable and sustainable for planning
· Extensive discussions had been held in the context of transportation, and that agreement had been reached
· It was a long term development with the intention of constructing 30 houses a year (with completion in 2030). This would not impact the local economy as the houses would be built gradually
· There would be 110 affordable units
· A significant contribution to the education department
(ch) The
following main points were made by the local member (not a member of this
Planning Committee):-
· It was a very contentious scheme
· The development would have a negative impact on the area and local community
· A huge development – the largest submitted to Gwynedd's Planning Committee
·
This was a new village not a cluster of houses,
within 1km of another large development of 245 houses in Goetre
Uchaf. If approved, this would mean that there would
be 611 new homes in one small area.
· There was no need for new houses. Bangor already had plentiful houses for sale / rent. Purpose-built buildings were being constructed for students which would release housing on Bangor’s traditional streets, for families.
· A number of Welsh speakers lived in this area and therefore this development would be likely to have a detrimental impact on the Welsh community in Penrhosgarnedd.
· The members were reminded that everyone had a responsibility to protect the language and identity.
· Local schools and medical centres would be unable to cope as they were already close to capacity.
· The current traffic conditions in Caernarfon Road were a nightmare, and would obviously worsen
· There was a need to ensure that the development was sustainable and supportive of existing communities – the development did not address this
· There was no need to build on this land
· Call on the committee to refuse the application
The Senior Planning Service Manager emphasised that he
recognised the concerns and the objections which had been noted, but
nevertheless, the site had been designated for housing, and the development was
therefore acceptable in principle. In
addition, if the application was refused, it would have to be referred to a
cooling-off period as sufficient and relevant evidence had been submitted in
relation to access, infrastructure, linguistic matters and need.
It was proposed and seconded to approve the application.
(d) During the discussion, the following observations were made (in
favour of the application)
· Sympathy for the neighbours in relation to the scale of the development
· Difficult to believe that there was insufficient evidence for refusal
· The application site had been allocated for a housing development
· Important that it was a phased development – a core part of the development
· The concerns which were raised had been addressed by the officials
· Need to ensure strict conditions for 10 of the 30 dwellings offered annually to be affordable houses
(dd) During the discussion, the following observations were made (against the application)
· The development was too large – too many houses being squeezed into a small area
· A significant impact on the Welsh language
· No need for new communities
· The report was too general - insufficient detail
·
How would it be possible to ensure that 30% were
affordable houses? How would these be
advertised?
· Concern regarding the increase in traffic and road safety
· The infrastructure would be unable to cope with a development of this size.
· How would the local schools cope with the increase in the number of children
· Who had completed the language assessment – it did not contain sufficient detail and was likely to be based on the 2001 census
· Other developments in Bangor must be taken into consideration
· Refuse due to the fact that it is an over-development
(e) In response to the above observations, the officers noted:-
· The
number of houses had been agreed on the basis of the standard building density
figure of 30 units per hectare. The density of the proposed development was 33
units per hectare – the whole site measured 14.31 hectares (the 14.31 ha
included lands excluding land for the housing development i.e. it also included
the access roads and associated roundabouts)
· In the context of the 30% affordable housing, it was noted that the Council had appointed a District Valuer to conduct a detailed investigation in the form of a viability assessment of the development, and that the District Valuer had come to the conclusion that the scheme, when taking into account the educational contribution, could provide 30% of mixed affordable housing to include a shared tenure distributed as approximately 70:30 (reference was made to note 5.1.6 - 5.1.8 of the report
· In relation to requiring that 10 out of each 30 homes would be affordable, it was noted that a condition could be included to address this.
· In
relation to marketing houses locally, the scheme would be a phased development
which would be a means of managing the numbers released onto the market. The
affordable units would be subject to a 106 agreement.
· It was recognised that there would be an increase in traffic on Caernarfon Road, but it was noted that the assessments had come to the conclusion that the development was not likely to have a detrimental impact on the local roads network.
· It
was the applicant’s responsibility to provide a language assessment.
In response to an observation made in relation to the creation of an access / emergency road to Ysbyty Gwynedd from Caernarfon Road, it was noted that discussions had been held with BCUHB.
(f) In accordance with the Procedural Rules, the following vote to approve the application was registered:
In favour of the
proposal to approve the application, (5)
Councillors: Gwen Griffith, Anne T. Lloyd Jones, June Marshall, Michael Sol
Owen and Hefin Williams
Against the
proposal to approve the application, (6)
Councillors: Elwyn Edwards, Simon Glyn, W. Tudor Owen, John Pughe Roberts, Gruffydd Williams and Owain
Williams
Abstaining,(0)
The motion to approve the application fell.
(ff) A motion
was proposed and seconded to refuse the application, contrary to the officers’
recommendation.
· Detrimental to the Welsh language
· No evidence that the infrastructure would be able to cope
· No evidence that education would be able to cope
· No evidence that the roads network was adequate
RESOLVED
to refuse the application contrary to the officers’ recommendation.
The Senior
Planning Service Manager noted his intention, in accordance with the Procedural
Rules of this Committee, to refer the application to a cooling-off period and
to bring a further report before the committee highlighting the risks
associated with refusing the application.
Supporting documents: