Agenda item

Erection of new building to accommodate 6 residential apartments,  change of use of building to flexible commercial space on ground floor Use Class A1, A2, A3 and/or B1 and conversion of above floors to 18 flats with associated extensions and alterations.

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Steve Collings

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To delegate the power to the Planning Manager to approve the application by implementing and assessing the need for a provision of affordable housing (and securing either a condition or a 106 agreement if formal provision is required) and subject to a 106 agreement to secure a financial contribution towards open spaces.

 

Conditions:

 

5 years, in accordance with the plans, noise conditions, extraction systems, Welsh Water, materials and finishes, Welsh name for the development and units.

 

 

 

Erection of new building to accommodate six residential apartments, change of use of building to flexible commercial space on ground floor Use Class A1, A2, A3 and/or B1 and conversion of above floors to 18 flats with associated extensions and alterations.

 

            Attention was drawn to the late observations form.

 

a)            The Planning Manager highlighted that the application included the following elements:

·         Construction of new three-storey building to the rear of the site to provide six 2 bedroom residential flats.

·         Change of use of ground floor of former shop to flexible uses as a shop and hub.

·         Minor changes to the shop front elevations.

·         Provision of 18 flats above existing shop across two floors to include 16 1 bedroom units and two 2 bedroom units.      

·         Extension and alterations at the rear of the existing building to enable the provision of some of the residential units and balconies.

·         Provision of five parking spaces.

·         Use of private driveway to the rear of the property.

·         Siting of bin stores to the rear of the existing building.

·         Siting of a small amenity space/terrace to the rear of the existing building along with soft and hard landscaping.

 

It was explained that the building and site were located within the city centre and within the development boundary as included in the LDP and the principle of developing the site against Policy PCYFF 1 and Policy TAI 1 of the LDP was considered. It was noted that the building was within the city's main retail area and was surrounded by a mix of residential uses in the form of flats, commercial along with a public car park. The use of the former shop ceased in September 2020.

 

In the context of the indicative housing supply level for Bangor over the Plan period, it was highlighted that the provision in April 2021 was nine units greater than the indicative supply level for windfall sites in Bangor and that this current proposal exceeded the indicative growth level of Bangor. As a result, any justification submitted with the application outlining how the proposal would address the needs of the local community must be reviewed. In response to this requirement, the applicant submitted a Design, Access and Planning Statement (amended) and additional information/statements that included the following information:

 

·         The applicant was the largest provider of rented accommodation in Bangor and it was seen that there was a significant shortage of 1-2 bedroom studio flats.

·         The application would fill the gap between student accommodation and first time buyers.

·         The applicant intended to complete the first phase of the development within 12 months and complete the detached building within 24 months (unlike other developments that received permission but were yet to commence).

·         Although the indicative figure for housing in Bangor had already been reached, it was not anticipated that all the houses on sites in the windfall land bank and designated sites in Bangor were likely to be developed.

·         Should the application receive planning permission and the other housing designations within the land bank realised, the cumulative figure of houses would only equate to a 3.4% increase in the indicative figure within the LDP for Bangor.

·         Authorities should not refuse applications for housing within windfall sites that exceeded the indicative figure as Planning Policy Wales advice stated that residential developments should be supported if they complied with national policies in relation to sustainability objectives and this site was located in an accessible location in the city centre.

·         The applicant had submitted open market valuations (OMVs) for the residential units. Gwynedd Council's Strategic Housing Unit had stated that 1 and 2 bedroom flats were needed in Bangor with 60 applicants on the Tai Teg register for 2 and 3 bedroom units and 517 applicants on the Council's common housing register for social housing.

·         The site was not suitable for 3 bedroom houses due to the size restrictions of the site.

·         Although other housing developments had received permission, the need for 1 and 2 bedroom flats in a central location in the city centre was obvious.

·         The proposal would provide 16 affordable residential units and the Strategic Housing Unit confirmed that the price of £40,000 to £75,000 for the 1 bedroom flats was affordable and that no discount was required.

 

It was considered 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. As a result, the Local Planning Authority would have to be convinced that this proposal would help to meet the needs of the local community.

 

Although general information had been received from the applicant highlighting the need for 1 and 2 bedroom studio flats in Bangor, which filled the gap between student accommodation and first-time buyers, it was argued that there was no detailed reference to the current position of residential units within the April 2021 land bank, where 178 out of 188 units in the land bank were for 1 and 2 bedroom flats.  The Local Planning Authority had not been undoubtedly convinced that the applicant had justified the provision of 24 residential units in the form of one and two-bedroom flats, which was in addition to the 178 flats that were already within the land bank in Bangor. Despite the evidence submitted by the Strategic Unit, affordable one bedroom units were for social use only. Therefore, it was not considered that the proposal met the needs of the local community in accordance with Policy TAI 8 of the LDP.

 

It was noted that the applicant initially intended to rent the flats and although open market valuations (sale price) had been submitted by the applicant for all flats, no figures had been submitted in relation to renting the flats. Consequently, it was not possible to confirm whether or not the rent prices of the 16 units were affordable. To this end, therefore, it was not believed that the proposal, based on the information that had been submitted to date, complied with the requirements of Policy TAI 15 or with the requirements of SPG:  Affordable Housing

 

In the context of retail/city centre considerations, it was noted that Policy PS15 of the LDP sought to protect and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres and their retail, service and social functions and encouraged a diverse mix of suitable uses within urban centres that were of high quality and attracted a wide range of people at different times of the day. Policy MAN 2 noted that proposals for the change of use of retail units located within the main shopping area could only be permitted if it could be shown that the unit was no longer viable and that all efforts had been made to maintain the property's A1 (shop) use. It was reiterated that Policy MAN 1 of the LDP stated that proposals for new retail, commercial and leisure developments would be directed towards town centres subject to planning considerations such as design and amenities.

 

In the context of visual amenities, it was reported that the site was located in the city centre which contained a vast number and an array of commercial and residential structures and buildings. It was considered that the greatest impact on the external elevations would be seen to the rear of the building where the existing extensions would be demolished and a new extension to be erected in their place. The separate building providing six residential units would be three-storey, would follow a rectangular shape and would have a modern and current design. Given the design, layout, external elevations, materials and scale of the extension and the separate building, it was not believed that cumulatively they would create significantly incongruous structures in this part of the townscape.

 

It was reiterated, according to the Local Planning Authority's information, number 288 High Street was used for residential purposes, 296 High Street had a commercial use and the residential dwellings of Ger y Mynydd were located 43m to the north. Although it was acknowledged that there would be an element of shadowing to the residential dwellings, it was not considered that it would be considerable or significant and there would be no passive and community overlooking between sites.

 

In the context of transport and access matters, as part of the application and in accordance with the requirements of the Transportation Unit in their response to the pre-application enquiry, it was noted that a Technical Note on Transportation had been submitted which confirmed - (i) that the site was accessible to different modes of travel (ii) that the development would be likely to create a minimum increase in transport and (iii) that the development complied with national policies within TAN: Transportation.

 

In the context of linguistic matters, although no response had been received from the Language Unit on the content of the Statement, it was believed that, in this case, it could not be ensured that the 16 affordable flats would meet local need or be affordable on the basis of rent as no information had been received in relation to this element of the proposal. As a result, it could not be confirmed that the proposal, if approved, would safeguard or promote the language in the city. In terms of meeting local need and the affordability of the proposal, it could not be confirmed that the proposal complied with the requirements of Policy PS 1 of the LDP, SPG: 
Maintaining and Creating Distinctive and Sustainable Communities and TAN 2: Planning and Affordable Housing.

 

It was reported that the proposal to develop 24 new one and two-bedroom residential units on the particular site would not be acceptable in principle based on: (i) a lack of evidence that there was a real need in Bangor for one and two-bedroom units in addition to the 178 similar units/flats that were already within the land bank for the city. (ii) no evidence had been received that the flats would be affordable on the basis of rent and (iii) due to concern number (ii), it could not be confirmed that the proposal would provide affordable flats to address the needs of the local community.

 

It was recommended to refuse the application.

 

b)            Taking advantage of the right to speak, the agent noted the following observations:

·         It was a full application for the change of use of the former Peacocks shop on Bangor High Street, which had been empty for two years, to create a flexible space on the ground floor and to convert the above floors to 18 flats and construct six flats on dilapidated land behind the High Street. Open market and affordable flats to let or sell - not units for students.

·         The development would make perfect use of a substantial building on the High Street - an unlisted building, but of historical importance in Bangor as the founding shop of the Pollycoff family.

·         The applicant had a tenant (Town Square) interested in using the ground floor as an enterprise hub to be used by small businesses ranging from a café to offices to micro workshops. This type of development had already seen success in Wrexham city centre and Rhyl under the management of the same tenant with financial assistance from Welsh Government.

·         Financial assistance from the Bangor City Centre Investment and Property Renovation Scheme had already been earmarked by Gwynedd Council for the development, along with clear support for the development by the Economic Development Team.

·         The only objection by the Local Planning Authority was the fact that a number of houses and flats in the Bangor land bank had not been developed and that the indicative housing supply level for Bangor over the Local Plan period amounted to 969 units - it was assumed therefore that the current number, including the land bank, exceeded this figure by nine units - only nine units within a main centre! It must be borne in mind that this figure was indicative and not the maximum limit.

·         On closer examination of the sites in the land bank, many were unlikely to be developed during the LDP period - Jewson's site - 70 units in the land bank were in the ownership of a housing developer, but the site was for sale; Maesgeirchen Social Club site - 10 one bedroom flats in the land bank but an intention to develop them as a shop without flats. In addition, some sites that had been earmarked in the LDP for housing were slowly being brought forward - or introducing fewer houses than expected. It was clear therefore, that there was more flexibility to develop other sites that would be of economic value to the town.

·         The site would not sit in the land bank for years - should it be approved, the development would commence with immediate effect - an investment of £2.2 million in the centre of Bangor High Street - this would potentially reverse the declining standards of the High Street - an important development that would give confidence to others to invest in the city.

 

c)            Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Adjoining Member made the following points (on behalf of the Local Member):

·         The project was to be welcomed and supported.

·         The site was located in a prominent area on the High Street.

·         The applicant had experience and expertise in the field.

·         Being punished as permissions in the land bank had not been commenced.

·         Only nine units above the housing supply threshold.

·         There were no concerns about the design.

·         Funding had been identified for the economic and regeneration elements.

·         Quality 1 and 2 bedroom units were needed for young professionals.

·         A similar development in the city had been very successful.

·         The proposal would keep local people in the area - contacts, network, resources were good reasons to stay.

·         Work would commence with immediate effect.

·         It would be refreshing to see a building that was rapidly becoming a ruin being converted into a high quality development.

 

d)            It was proposed and seconded to approve the application, contrary to the recommendation.

Reasons:

·         That there was a need to weigh up economic benefits v land bank figures.

·         There were permissions that had not been implemented and were unlikely to be developed.

·         The proposal would regenerate the City centre.

·         Needed to protect an important building.

·         The imperfect system of the land bank created problems.

 

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

·           That this was an opportunity to regenerate the City centre.

·           Welcomed the initiative - did not want to lose an opportunity.

·           The existing building was deteriorating.

·           It would give confidence to other businesses to venture.

·           Some other permissions in the area were not going ahead.

·           The increase in the number of units in the land bank was small.

 

In response to a comment with regard to withdrawing permissions that had not been implemented, it was noted that the current law set a condition to develop within 5 years but also allowed developers to apply for an extension.

 

Members were reminded of a similar application that had recently been refused due to a lack of land bank justification (although accepting that the proposal was not on the High Street). In response, a Member noted that the Llys Ioan application was to demolish a historic building - this case involved preservation and that every application should be considered on its own merits.

 

RESOLVED: To delegate the power to the Planning Manager to approve the application after assessing the need for a provision of affordable housing (and ensuring either via a condition or 106 agreement if a formal provision is needed) and subject to a 106 agreement to ensure a financial contribution towards open spaces.

 

Conditions:

 

Five years, in accordance with the plans, noise conditions, extraction systems, Welsh Water, materials and finishes, Welsh name for the development and units.