Agenda item

Change of use form offices to 5 residential flats, including extension at the rear.  Air source heat pumps and a new door to the refuse store.

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Cai Larsen

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To defer

 

Reason:  Request for further information and evidence of the need, to meet policy TAI 8 requirements

 

Change of use of offices to 5 residential flats, including a rear extension. Installation of an Air Source Heat Pump and a door to the waste storage

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form.

 

The Planning Manager highlighted that the building was substantial, located on the corner of the high street within the development boundary of Caernarfon Town and the World Heritage Site Conservation Area. There was no intention to change the front or side elevation of the building that are prominent from the high street. It was confirmed that there was sufficient capacity within the Caernarfon indicative supply for this development currently.

 

It was highlighted that the property was under Cyngor Gwynedd's ownership and the proposed use would form part of the Council's statutory response to the duty of accommodating homeless people. It was emphasised that the plan's target group were low-risk homeless individuals, not complex supported accommodation or some use that would create a high-level impact on the community. It was noted that the units complied with the Welsh Government's standards for affordable units in terms of size, and the proposed use would address homelessness (without overloading the local housing provision, and would provide affordable units in accordance with the requirements of the planning policy).

 

Reference was made to a statement received by Cyngor Gwynedd's Housing and Property Department confirming that the property would be earmarked as a "meanwhile" property, offering a stable accommodation for a period of up to two years whilst individuals were waiting for a suitable permanent solution.  It was highlighted that a total of 81 individuals were currently located in the Town and no additional plans were currently being considered in Caernarfon. With the proposal being provided as a social property under the Council's management within an Urban Service Centre, it was considered that the proposal would meet the requirements of policy TAI 15 subject to including a condition that the proposal would ensure affordable units in perpetuity.

 

It was explained that the alteration work would include internal changes and constructing a three-storey extension within the rear yard of the property, therefore it would not impact the building's elevation or character which was prominent to the public or have a detrimental visual impact on the World Heritage Site or the Conservation Area. The work would include installing ground floor windows and first-floor windows for the back bedrooms and it was confirmed that the first-floor windows would be fitted with opaque glass – this could be ensured by imposing a planning condition. It was also noted that a planning condition would be imposed to submit the details and location of the air source heat pump. Consequently, it was considered that the proposal would not have a significant detrimental impact on nearby residents.

 

In the context of transport and access matters, it was noted that the property was located in the Town centre where there were vehicle parking spaces on the street and within public car parks. In terms of biodiversity matters, reference was made to the improvements proposed and it was reported that the language statement presented noted a neutral to positive impact on the language.

 

It was considered that the proposal complied with the requirements of local and national policies and the officers recommended approving the application subject to imposing relevant conditions.

 

b)                 Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following observations:

·          That he objected to the application, despite feeling very uncomfortable in doing so

·          The intention for changing the property’s designation was to provide 'meanwhile' accommodation for homeless people who were waiting for a permanent solution to their housing needs

·          That he was very supportive of his electors who were looking for support when facing homelessness – felt the pain and stress they face at difficult times.

·          There was a significant problem in terms of lack of social housing in Gwynedd that could lead to homelessness – he would be happy to support most of the Council's plans to address this

·          However, the Caernarfon Town Centre ward already provided a lot for the homeless and he was proud of this and took the responsibility seriously

·          There were 58 individuals in different emergency locations and accommodation in the Town, as well as 23 individuals in properties leased by the Housing Department; Total 81 individuals

·          A property with 5 flats was being rented by Adra to GISDA and he was always supportive of this charity

·          Also aware that there was a significant number of private schemes such as HMOs in Caernarfon town centre. There was a close link, albeit a complex one, between the presence of HMOs and homelessness

·          There were many schemes underway to provide accommodation – the 'Lle Da' Scheme which would be located in the former Natwest Bank building and the large scheme at the old Crown Office (40 residential units) – supportive of the plans despite a local objection

·          Supportive of this type of development in principle, but was taking this point of view because he was concerned that there were too many of the same types of properties addressing homelessness located in a town that was small in size, but high in population

·          Concern about an increase in lawbreaking and antisocial problems

·          Should it be an option to sell these as flats, or rent them with permanent terms / social housing, then he would be very supportive of that

 

c)                 It was proposed and seconded to defer the application

 

Reason: there was a need for further evidence and information of the demand, to ensure the requirements of policy TAI 8.

 

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

·        There was a need for better understanding of the demand to ensure that the flats accommodated the right people – required definitive evidence

·        Good use of old offices, but was homelessness the best use?

·        The Plan was part of the Council's Housing Plan associated with a grant (which would be lost should it not be used)

·        Why had the Local Member not been consulted beforehand?

·        Housing homeless people would be a saving – avoiding the use of emergency accommodation

 

In response to observations regarding proving the need, attention was drawn to the late observations form which noted that there was a huge demand for this type of property, as a significant number of people have been waiting in unsuitable emergency accommodation for years before being able to move to a suitable, more stable property. It was reiterated that the data proved this, with 81 individuals in different emergency locations and accommodation within the town, and the aim of the proposal was to address the statutory duty of accommodating homeless people.

 

It was noted that Caernarfon was identified as an Urban Service Centre and was therefore a settlement that addressed the need of the County in its entirety. It was therefore considered that there was no doubt about the need, but from a Planning perspective, there was an intention to impose an affordable condition to ensure that the scheme could evolve into affordable accommodation in the future. It was highlighted that the type of accommodation was relatively new and a step towards not placing people in emergency accommodation that was not fit for purpose. The Council's intention was to move away from this. Despite accepting that there were other schemes in the Town for homeless people, applications had not been presented.

 

In response to observations about the grant and financial savings, the Monitoring Officer noted that financial implications were not relevant to the planning procedure, and it was land use that was being considered, and not the use of grant.

 

RESOLVED: To defer

 

Reason: Request further information and evidence of the need, to meet policy TAI 8 requirements