skip to main content

Agenda item

Application to demolish existing buildings and erect a 4 storey building to create 36 residential unts, associated vehicular parking spaces, amendments to the existing vehicular access and creation of new vehicular access

 

LOCAL MEMBERS: Councillor Catrin Wager and Councillor Mair Rowlands

 

Link to relevant background documents

Decision:

To delegate powers to the Senior Planning Manager to refuse the application based on the following reasons:

1.    The proposal is contrary to the requirements of Policies PS 17 and TAI 1 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (2017) as the applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence with the application to convince the Local Planning Authority that there is a need for additional one and two-bedroom flats in Bangor, bearing in mind that this proposal exceeds the indicative housing growth level of Bangor for windfall sites. As a result, the proposal is also contrary to criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Policy TAI 8 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan (2017) as it is believed that it would create an imbalance in the type and mix of small units within the city, and no evidence has been received that the proposal responds positively to the needs of the local community.

2.    The proposal is contrary to PCYFF 3 and 4 - impact on visual amenities - scale, density, impact on the street-scene - an oppressive building

Minutes:

Application to demolish existing buildings and erect a 4-storey building to create 36 residential units, associated vehicular parking spaces, amendments to the existing vehicular access and creation of new vehicular access

 

a)            The Senior Development Control Officer highlighted that this was a full application to develop a site adjacent to Holyhead Road and Convent Lane within the Bangor development boundary as contained in the LDP - it had not been designated or protected for any particular use. The principle of developing the site against Policy PCYFF 1 and Policy TAI 1 of the LDP was considered.

 

It was explained that the indicative housing supply level for Bangor during the Plan period was 969 units and in April 2021, the windfall land bank stood at 118 units, with further permission for 70 units on sites already designated for housing in the LDP. In such circumstances, consideration would be given to the units that had been completed thus far within the Key Centres tier with Policy PS 17 of the LDP noting that 53% of the housing growth would be located within the Key Centres. According to a survey of the situation in relation to the provision within all the Key Centres in April 2021, it appeared that 1,647 units from the total of 4,194 units had been completed, and that 943 were in the land bank (and likely to be completed). Considering the current situation, support could be given to approve this site against general provision (based on the completion rate so far) within the Key Centres category; however, in light of the position of windfall sites in Bangor, any justification submitted with this application should be reviewed outlining how the proposal would address the needs of the local community.

 

In response to this requirement, the applicant had submitted a Housing Impact Assessment along with background information. In response to the information, the Local Planning Authority noted the following:

·         While the Tai Teg Register highlighted the need for intermediate housing, the need for flats was fairly low, and in particular one-bedroom flats - 3% for one-bedroom flats and 7% for two-bedroom flats).

·         There was no specific evidence from local estate agents about any waiting lists.

·         The Assessment did not refer to the former Jewsons site (permission for 77 one and two-bedroom open market flats including 13 intermediate affordable flats).

·         It must therefore be considered whether the evidence submitted by the applicant for a general need for smaller sized units was sufficient to justify granting permission for 36 additional flats in Bangor, which would mean increasing the land-bank of flats from 178 to 214 for Bangor.

 

In response to the above observations, additional information was submitted by the applicant stating: -

·         Local estate agents were in a much more knowledgeable position than the Council in relation to assessing the commercial need for residential units in Bangor.

·         As the applicant was in the business of constructing and selling houses, it would not make sense to build units where there was not much need for them.

·         The Housing Impact Assessment clearly showed that there was a need for social and intermediate one and two-bedroom units in Bangor.

·         It was impossible for the applicant to confirm, with certainty, the construction time of residential developments in Bangor that was beyond their control. Although the applicant was interested in the former Jewsons site, the site could not be developed at present for 77 flats as an application to discharge a condition regarding affordable home details had been submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Should the Jewsons development (C17/0835/11/MG for 70 flats) not proceed (as it was not guaranteed that this permission would be granted), there would be a reduction of 34 units within the residential unit bank permitted (including the Llys Ioan site).

·         Approving more one and two-bedroom units in Bangor would have a positive impact on affordability.

·         It was considered that developing this prominent and unimposing site (which was also a brownfield site) in a sustainable location within the city would be material consideration of such a scale that it would outweigh any policy concerns/conflict.

 

It was argued that the key issue here was that the proposal, cumulatively with the current land bank and housing designations to develop housing in the city, involved a level of development that would be above the indicative demand for residential units during the LDP period. Therefore, the Local Planning Authority would have to be convinced that this proposal would help to meet the needs of the local community. Despite this, having assessed all information, the Local Planning Authority had not been undoubtedly convinced that the applicant had justified the provision of 36 residential units in the form of one and two-bedroom flats, which was in addition to the 177 flats that were already within the land bank in Bangor. As a result, the proposal did not meet the needs of the local community in accordance with Policy TAI8.

 

In the context of visual amenities, the scale, design, setting and landscaping was considered and it was concluded that the proposal was acceptable on the basis of the impact of visual amenities of this part of the streetscape.

 

In the context of general and residential matters, it was highlighted that residential dwellings were located to the north, east and west of the site and a number of objections had been received following a statutory public consultation relating to noise disturbance, light pollution, air pollution, litter and creation of an oppressive structure. Nevertheless, due to the urban nature of the site it was considered that noise nuisance or pollution/litter that may derive from this proposed development would not be any different in nature to any other type of development situated in a residential area.

 

A concern had also been submitted regarding the oppressive impact of the building on the amenities of local residents although the proposed building had been designed in order to reduce its impact and physical impact within the local streetscape. Having considered the land levels, the layout of the residential dwellings in relation to the proposed building, along with the space between them, it was considered that the building itself would not create a substantial mask or oppressive structure at the expense of the general amenities of the occupants of these dwellings as the building was designed to reduce any substantial direct overlooking.

 

In the context of transport and access matters, a Transport Statement had been submitted with the application, which concluded that transport levels that may derive from the development could be acceptable on the grounds of road safety along with the safety of road users. In response to the statutory consultation process, the Transportation Unit had no objection to the application based on road safety and accessibility of the site, subject to the inclusion of relevant conditions/notes.

 

A Welsh Language Statement had been submitted with the application in accordance with the requirements of Policy PS1 of the LDP, along with advice included in the SPG: Maintaining and Creating Unique and Sustainable Communities.

 

As the proposal provided 7 affordable units, it was noted that this would comply with the requirements of Policy TAI 15 of the LDP regarding the thresholds of affordable housing and their distribution. It was reiterated that the applicant had received a valuation for the intermediate affordable units from two qualified local estate agents and a 20% discount would be needed for the valuation for the one-bedroom units and a 30% discount for the valuation for the two-bedroom units to make them affordable on an intermediate level.

 

It was considered that the proposal to develop 36 residential units on this site would not be acceptable in principle based on a lack of evidence that there was a real need in Bangor for small one and two-bedroom units in addition to the 177 similar units/flats that were already within the land bank for the city. Approving the application would lead to an imbalance in this type of residential accommodation provision in Bangor and it would not respond positively to housing needs that had been identified in the city and, therefore, it was considered unacceptable.

 

b)            Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following comments:

·         That site was a derelict landmark which stood prominently adjacent to the railway station. It had a negative impact on the setting of this part of the City. It did not create a great first impression for visitors arriving at the station.

·         The proposal would totally transform the site and its location and make a positive contribution towards the regeneration of the City.

·         The Officers had no problem with the design of the building and they agreed that it was tantamount to a high-quality redevelopment on a brownfield site in a sustainable location.

·         The only concern related to a hypothetical housing supply matter. Considering other permissions for residential developments in Bangor, officers were of the opinion that this plan would lead to an oversupply of housing provided by windfall sites. The concern derived from housing targets that had been calculated many years ago. By now, significant events such as Brexit and Covid had had a substantial impact on the way of life and where to live. On this basis, it was suggested that the calculation was dated and that it was now completely irrelevant.

·         There was no certainty that all permissions would be implemented. Officers had asked for an evaluation of extant planning permissions and the likelihood that they would be delivered. This was not possible as the intention of landowners and independent developers could not be anticipated or they may be unwilling to disclose this information accurately.

·         His clients owned the former Jewsons site in the City, which had an extant planning permission but for 70 flats.  Unlikely that the site would be developed in accordance with the current permission as the latest market research showed that a mix of town houses and flats would be more suitable for it.  Such a mix would halve the number of housing units that were intended to be developed.

·         The former Jewsons site was a very different site to the location of the application in question, which was ideal to develop flats. Should the Jewsons site permission be resubmitted and the application in question was approved, there would be no net increase in the number of units in the land bank. There was no certainty either that the other permissions that contributed towards the land bank would be implemented.

·         A concern was often raised regarding housing affordability in Bangor - the price was set by need and supply. Preventing developments like this would worsen the gap between the need and the supply, and further increase prices.

·         Officers of the opinion that this was a high-quality plan and had been well considered. The construction phase would provide a huge boost for local traders and the supply chain. In the long-term, the occupants of the flats would be likely to spend some of their income in the City, which would be welcomed.

·         Benefits of the plan would outweigh any hypothetical oversupply matters and granting permission was encouraged.

·         What was the future of this landmark site if a well-designed housing development was not deemed acceptable?  Should the site continue to be derelict, what would this say about the Council's regeneration ambitions?

 

c)            Taking advantage of the right to speak, Councillor Catrin Wager noted the following observations: The observations of a fellow Local Member, Councillor Mair Rowlands were also presented.

 

Councillor Mair Rowlands

·      Following discussions, local people objected to the application. Although supportive of the proposal to try to meet local housing needs and to develop affordable units, there were different reasons for objecting to this development.

·      The proposed building was out of character - not only within the local streetscape but also within the city. The design was not in-keeping with the area, especially given that this was an important strategic site, overlooking the railway station. The four-storey building would dominate and invade all of the land available on the site and it was excessive in terms of scale and height. The concept and design were unsympathetic to the character of Bangor as an ancient and historic city.

·      Concerns had been raised about traffic and road safety - it was considered that the proposal would increase traffic along a single road at the expense of pedestrian safety, including school children and college students, which was also a cycle path within the city.

·      An over-development of this type of units without evidence of the need for more flats in Bangor. The right amount of housing developments and flats had recently been approved and developed in Bangor, which included the Plas Farrar Adra development - one and two-bedroom flats in Bangor that would be adjacent to this proposed development. 

·      The applicants cannot justify the need to provide 36 residential units in the form of one and two-bedroom flats, which was in addition to the 177 flats that were already within the land bank in Bangor and, therefore, it was not believed that the proposal satisfied the needs of the local community in accordance with Policy TAI8.

·      Approving this application would mean that the supply would exceed the Bangor indicative growth level, which would lead to an imbalance in this type of residential accommodation provision in Bangor. It would not respond positively to housing needs in Bangor.

 

Councillor Catrin Wager

·         Supported the recommendation - the development did not meet the local need.

·         Bangor City Council and the Civic Society had noted objections although the observations had not been included in the report.

·         Disagreed with the statement that 'the proposal is acceptable on the basis of the impact of visual amenities' - the 3m development was above the road and four-storeys - it would appear oppressive and excessive.

·         The site was strategically important for Bangor - a site that needed to be developed and part of Bangor's regeneration plans.

·         The design was not in-keeping with historic buildings of the railway.

·         The railway building was registered - should this building be registered as well? Did not want to lose the historical connection - needed to protect the heritage of the City.

·         The area offered buildings that were in-keeping with special features - needed to preserve this.

·         The site was empty and problematic - needed to get it back into use but this was not the right development for this site.

 

d)            It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application.

 

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

·         The development would have a substantial impact on the streetscape.

·         Needed to protect a historic building.

·         Needed a better design for the site - this design was oppressive in a prominent site.

·         No justification for the need - the Jewsons development had not proceeded, why? No demand for this type of flats?

·         Alien plans

·         Hundreds of flats had been constructed in Bangor - no need for more

·         A shame to turn down such an investment but it was the wrong development in the wrong place

·         Additional basis for refusal suggested in terms of visual impact - scale and density.

 

In response to a suggestion on an additional basis for refusal, the need for the proposer to support the suggestion was made should the application go to appeal. Councillor Stephen Churchman accepted the advice and he agreed for the additional basis for refusal to be submitted.

 

RESOLVED to delegate the right to the Senior Planning Manager to refuse the application based on the following reasons:

 

1.    The proposal is contrary to the requirements of Policies PS 17 and TAI 1 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (2017) as the applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence with the application to convince the Local Planning Authority that there is a need for additional one and two-bedroom flats in Bangor, bearing in mind that this proposal exceeds the indicative housing growth level of Bangor for windfall sites. As a result, the proposal is also contrary to criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Policy TAI 8 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan (2017) as it is believed that it would create an imbalance in the type and mix of small units within the city, and no evidence has been received that the proposal responds positively to the needs of the local community.

 

2.    The proposal is contrary to PCYFF 3 and 4 - impact on visual amenities - scale, density, impact on the street scene - an oppressive building.

 

Supporting documents: