Agenda item

 

Proposed demolition of existing shop and erection of 1 no. Retail unit, 3 no. open market dwellings, 1 affordable dwelling, creation of new vehicular access, parking spaces and all other associated development (re-submission)

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Glyn Daniels

Link to relevant background documents

 

DECISION: To undertake a site visit (subject to undertaking a risk assessment that would consider the appropriateness and safety measures in the context of Covid-19 guidelines)

 

Application to demolish existing shop and erect 1 shop, 3 open market houses and 1 affordable house together with new vehicular access and parking provision (re-submission) at the former Woolworth site, High Street, Blaenau Ffestiniog.

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form.

 

a)            The Planning Manager highlighted that the development would be split into two parts, namely one building facing the High Street and the other building facing Glynllifon Street.  The front building would be split into the shop area (A1) with a flat (2 bedrooms) above the shop and a two-storey house (1 bedroom) adjacent to the back of the shop with a garden.  The second building would include two residential units (1 bedroom) that would extend over three storeys each with amenity gardens and parking provision.

The application was submitted to the Planning Committee at the Local Member’s request.

 

It was explained that the site was located within the development boundary of the Blaenau Ffestiniog Urban Service Centre.  It was noted that the vacant retail unit (of significant size) has been marketed for a long period without much interest shown. It was added that there was reasonable demand for small units and it was considered that the proposal would not lose a retail unit and the proposal met with the principles of policies MAN 1 and PS 15 of the Local Development Plan.

 

It was also reported that Blaenau Ffestiniog has been identified as an Urban Service Centre and the site was within the centre's development boundary.  It was added that there was a need for more new houses and the proposal offered one  affordable unit that met the policy requirements of policy TAI 15 and policy TAI 8 An Appropriate Mix of Housing 

In the context of visual matters, it was considered that the development was likely to blend into its urban context retaining the traditional development forms and patterns and using suitable materials for the location.  The proposal would make positive use of the site of an extensive previously used building that has stood vacant and had been deteriorating for a long period.  Therefore, it was considered that the proposal met with the requirements of policies PS 5 and PCYFF 3 in the LDP.

 

Attention was drawn to the concerns received regarding the impact of the development on neighbours and it was explained that the application was a resubmission of planning application C21/0295/03/LL which was withdrawn to respond to the concerns of the Planning Officers.  Following discussions with the applicant the applicant amended the application and the plans. It was considered that the impact had been assessed in detail and imposing conditions would overcome the concerns.

It was highlighted that the proposal would include two parking areas for two units on Glynllifon Street.  Although the proposal did not offer an individual parking provision for each unit, this was deemed reasonable for a town centre location, with parking opportunities on nearby streets and in public car parks.  It was noted that the site was an accessible location to the High Street where there was convenient access to public transport and priority should be given to develop accessible and sustainable sites as everyone does not own a vehicle. Regarding the concerns received about highway matters and parking in the vicinity, it was considered that the density of traffic of the previous shop e.g. delivery lorries and staff parking generated heavy traffic movements. It could be argued that the traffic movements of two cars would cause much less disruption than delivery lorries and staff and customer movements as with the previous use. 

 

It was reported that priority would be given to the development of sites that have been previously developed, and it was considered that the proposal would achieve this and improve the visual quality of a prominent site on the High Street with a design and scale of the development in-keeping with the vicinity.  

 

b)         Taking advantage of the right to speak, the local member made the following points:

·         That neighbours to the site had highlighted concern that the proposal was an over development

·         Concerns about the safety of the foundations of nearby buildings

·         Fire exit of a nearby building was on this building

·         The Meirion public house toilets were on the wall of the building that was to be demolished

·         Concerns about parking places

·         There was a suggestion in the report that the nearby shed was a lean to - it was not a lean to      

·         A need to consider the privacy of neighbours - the proposal was higher than the existing

·         Photographs with the report suggested that is was an untidy and empty area - this was misleading

·         More consideration was needed of health and safety issues - there was a need to hold discussions with neighbours

·         There was a suggestion that a site visit should be conducted - correct information and facts had not been submitted with the application 

 

c)     It was proposed and seconded to undertake a site visit.

 

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

·         That the Town Council objected

·         That there was a need to consider the safety element and the proximity of the proposal to other buildings

·         The proposal appeared to be an over development of the site 

·         A visit would be better than trying to come to a decision by looking at photographs 

·         That appropriate consideration needed to be given to safety matters and to the complaints noted 

 

·         What was being proposed was better than what currently exists - the site was likely to become untidy if it was kept as it was  

·         It would be possible to consider an amended plan with fewer houses?   This would overcome the issues 

 

In response to the observations regarding building matters, the Head of Legal Services noted that these would be addressed by the Building Control Unit and Private Land Law as the proposal would have to comply with building regulations.  It was added that 'the construction of the building' was not a planning matter.

 

In response to a comment regarding suitable photographs, the Planning Manager noted that the photographs were a good reflection of the site and several discussions had taken place with the applicant regarding over development and loss of privacy - amended plans had been submitted to relax the impact in certain places.

 

RESOLVED: To undertake a site visit (subject to undertaking a risk assessment that would consider the appropriateness and safety measures in the context of Covid-19 guidelines)