Demolish existing buildings and erection of retirement living houses (30 units) along with communal facilities, landscaping and car parking.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Michael Sol Owen
Minutes:
The discussion on
the above application was chaired by the Vice-chair.
(a) The
Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application and
noted from the information submitted that it was understood that the units
would be sold on a 125 year lease with the accommodation to be occupied by
persons over 60 years old, or in the case of a couple, where one person was
over 60 and the other over 55 years old.
It was explained that policy CH6 of the
GUDP stated that consideration needs to be given to the fact that a percentage
(that will vary from site to site) of the units provided as part of the plan on
any site in Bangor, Blaenau Ffestiniog, Caernarfon, Porthmadog and Pwllheli will meet
a need for affordable housing, unless the Planning Authority can be satisfied,
after considering all relevant factors, that it would be inappropriate to
provide affordable housing on the site. It was noted that the information
provided by the Joint Planning Policy Unit evidenced that there was no doubt
that there was justification to request affordable housing unless other matters
such as feasibility prevented this.
It was noted that the applicant stated that costs associated with
the development meant that it would not be viable to offer a contribution
towards affordable housing or any other planning provision. It was reported that an assessment of the
viability matters had been undertaken by the Joint Planning Policy Unit using a
computer package to evaluate the viability of developments. In addition to this, there had been many
discussions between officers and the applicant regarding viability issues. Initially, a contribution of approximately
20% had been sought towards affordable housing.
However, following undertaking the relevant viability assessments it
became evident that this type of contribution would not be viable for the
development. They had come to the conclusion, as a result of the assessments
made by the Joint Planning Policy Unit, that it would be possible to have a
contribution of 7%. This would be
equivalent to about two affordable units on the site or if it was a commutative
contribution towards affordable housing in the area it would equate to around
£94,000. However, it was noted that the applicant continued to argue that it
would not be viable to offer a contribution towards affordable housing as part
of the development. Nevertheless, in order to proceed they had offered a
commutative sum towards affordable housing of £40,000.
The proposal in question would
contribute to provision of retirement accommodation locally where these types
of homes are not available. The proposal would also be re-use brownfield land
which was currently untidy and an eyesore and it would also bring economic
benefits in terms of work (site manager to run the site following completion
and building work associated with the development) and wider within the
community with the residents using local facilities. Therefore, as a result of
the viability issues with the development it was considered to be reasonable to
accept the offer of £40,000 towards an affordable housing provision off the
site, in this case, the proposal therefore complied with the requirements of
policy CH6 GUDP.
Reference was made
to the additional observations received, it was noted that NRW had withdrawn
their objection if appropriate conditions are imposed on the permission with
flooding risk control and bat mitigation measures. Consequently, the recommendation now was to
approve the application subject to signing a 106 Agreement regarding a
financial contribution towards affordable housing with relevant planning
conditions.
(b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main
points:-
·
The location of the
development was ideal as it was close to services;
·
Local need had been identified and the development
would satisfy the needs of older persons;
·
Individuals wanted to remain within their
communities and such developments also enabled them to have company and
alleviate the burden of maintaining their property;
·
45 homes had shown an
interest in the units;
·
It was a high quality development and the Committee
was requested to approve it.
(c)
The local member (a member of this Planning Committee) made the
following main points:-
·
There was a demand
for this type of provision and the site was in the correct location as it
was close to facilities;
·
There was a solution regarding the
objection of NRW in the context of flooding risk and bats;
·
He was disappointed that only £40,000
was offered towards affordable housing provision off the site but this was not
a reason to refuse the application;
·
That the proposed access would improve
road safety;
·
To request the Committee to approve the
application.
(ch) Proposed and seconded – to approve the
application.
During the ensuing discussion the
following main comments were noted:
·
The development was to be welcomed but it was
disappointing that the officers had not pressed for an affordable provision in
the development rather than accept a contribution towards affordable housing provision off the
site;
·
Discontent regarding what was offered as a
contribution towards affordable housing on another site;
·
A letter and information leaflet had been received
from the company and different figures were stated on both regarding the
expenditure contribution from residents to the local economy;
·
Concern regarding language impact and the need for
the linguistic ability of the staff to reflect the area's linguistic fabric;
·
There was no evidence before them to show the local
need;
·
Concern regarding the cost of the units;
·
The development would place an additional strain on
the surgery;
·
Why was the building
three-storeys considering the age of the residents?
·
That information should be received regarding the
sale price of the units.
(d) In response to the above
observations, the officers noted:-
·
That there were occupation restrictions and
therefore it would be difficult to sell the units as affordable;
·
That extensive
discussions had taken place with the company together with officers from
the Joint Planning Policy Unit regarding the contribution towards affordable housing provision. The viability matters were assessed by
the Joint Planning Policy Unit with a computer package that is used nationally
and it was concluded that it would be possible
to get a contribution of
7%, equivalent to approximately
£94,000. However, as a result of the viability issues
regarding the development the applicant had offered a commutative sum towards
affordable housing of £40,000;
·
If further evidence was required to justify the
financial contribution offered and the viability then the application may be
deferred;
·
Regarding language impact, the community and
linguistic statement submitted as part of the application had been assessed and
was acceptable;
·
That confirmation regarding the sale price of the
units could be requested.
An
amendment was made to defer the application in order to receive further
information in the context of the sale price of the units, viability of
providing affordable housing and the justification in terms of the financial
contribution offered. The amendment was
seconded.
RESOLVED to defer the application.
Supporting documents: