Agenda item

Demolition of existing building to redevelop the site for 9 100% affordable Over 55s Independent Living Apartments (C3) with Extra Care Services

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Sian Williams

 

Link to relevant background documents

 

 

 

DECISION: To delegate powers to the Head of the Environment Department to refuse the application:

 

1. It is not considered that the design of the proposal, in terms of layout, scale and appearance adds to enhancing the character and appearance of the site context neither does if fully integrate within the context of the immediate streetscene and its prominent location in this part of Cricieth. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to the relevant requirements of policies PCYFF 2 and PCYFF 3  of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan, 2017 together with part 2.6 of Technical Advice Note 12: Design, which states that design which is inappropriate in its context, or that does not take advantage of opportunities to enhance the character, quality and function of an area, should not be accepted, as these have detrimental effects on existing communities.

 

2. Due to the scale, mass and location and certain elements to be included in the proposed development, it would lead to an unacceptable impairment and overbearing effect on adjoining properties and their curtilage. It is therefore considered that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of residents of local properties contrary to criteria 7 of policy PCYFF2 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan, 2017.

 

Demolition of existing building and redevelop the site for 9 independent living flats (C3) with extra care service for those over 55 years old, 100% affordable

 

Attention was drawn to the Late Observations Form.

 

a)               The Planning Manager highlighted that this was a full application for the demolition of an existing vacant building (but which had previously been in use as a care/nursing home), and the redevelopment of the site by erecting a new building which would provide 9 affordable independent living C3 use flats with an extra care service for those over the age of 55.

 

It was explained that the proposal involved the erection of a 4-storey building, which would be slightly higher and set back within the site compared to the existing building.  The ground floor would include a main entrance and foyer along with communal areas for residents and staff in the form of a shared living area, an outdoor decking or terrace to the rear, an office, toilet and kitchen plus one living unit. The rest of the living units would be spread over the three floors above and in the form of one-bedroom units. Each unit would provide an open plan living/kitchen area and a bathroom.

 

The site is situated within the development boundary of the town of Cricieth with the A497 class 1 road running parallel to the front of the site, and the Cambrian Coast Railway directly adjacent to the rear. It was reiterated that the site of the application forms part of a striking streetscape when approaching the town of Cricieth from the west.

 

It was reported that the proposal had been presented as separate living units, use C3 with extra care for those over the age of 55, with all units being affordable. It was accepted that the valuations for the units were appropriate for the location and for this type of development with a discount level of 30% being acceptable. It was noted that the floor area of the flats was in line with relevant guidelines relating to the size of affordable units. The evidence presented did not give absolutely clear justification of the need for the units, but it is widely recognised that there is a need for affordable one-bedroom units in Gwynedd; the proposal would provide for that need subject to a condition to secure their tenure as affordable units and for people over the age of 55.

 

It was expressed that policy ISA 2 in the LDP aims to protect existing community facilities and opposed loss or change of use. It was highlighted that a statement had been received from the agent confirming that the previous use of the property as a home had been decommissioned and that the building would no longer be suitable for this use. It was also noted that the statement also argues that the proposal provides a suitable facility for the community that enables older people to live in their community with suitable care; to this end, due to viability implications for continuing to improve the existing home, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of policy ISA 2.

 

It was pointed out that discussions had taken place between officers from the Planning Authority and the agent which highlighted concern about the design of the proposal.  It was specifically noted that the proposed building would not blend in well with the surrounding area as it would dominate and be excessive within the local landscape. In response, the agent had confirmed that the applicant would not carry out any change to the design because the number of units needed to be kept as it was to ensure that the development was viable, and the need had been evidenced. As no proposal had been made to alleviate officers' concerns in relation to these issues, it was not considered that the current proposal was acceptable because of the detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area, and that it was contrary to the relevant requirements of policies PCYFF 2 and PCYFF 3 of the LDP together with the advice within Technical Advice Note 12: Design.

 

In terms of the rear elevation of the building, and given that the building will be set further back with a significant increase in the rear bulk and mass of the new building compared to the existing building, this would appear overwhelming and oppressive when viewed from adjacent buildings and from the outside areas. This elevation would also extend beyond the rear of the adjacent buildings, and is likely to result in a significant enclosure effect of the gardens and rooms at the rear of these buildings. It was noted that an external balcony would extend out from the rear of the building, and its location and height would overlook the existing private grounds of adjacent buildings. In addition, there would be an increase in the number of relatively large glass openings at the rear and due to their presence on higher floors, they will also add to the appearance of over-looking. It was therefore considered that the proposal would cause significant harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents and would not comply with Policy PCYFF 2 of the LDP which seeks to prevent unacceptable adverse effects on the amenity of occupiers of local residences.

 

It was noted that visual amenities, general and residential amenities, transportation and access issues, language issues, and biodiversity issues, had been fully assessed and were acceptable. Having considered all Planning considerations, it was considered that the proposal as submitted, was neither acceptable nor met the requirements of relevant policies. The Officers recommended that the application be refused.

 

b)               Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector to the application made the following observations:

·        That she was representing her parents, the owners of Hen Berllan, which is located next door to the site of the application.

·        That she welcomed the officers’ conclusions which highlighted that the proposal is not suitable for the site.

·        The proposal would replace a 3-storey building with a 4-storey building plus extend it further to the rear. As the officers had noted, this would appear dominant and excessive within the local landscape and would not integrate with adjacent streets.

·        That the officers' comments reflected the concerns of residents who shared their objection – the proposal would introduce a structure that is inconsistent and oppressive, completely unlike the character of neighbouring properties.

·        It would have a significant impact on neighbouring residents – a higher scale and the extension to the rear would seem domineering and oppressive from the property next door – Hen Berllan.

·        The proposed balcony and top-floor openings would directly overlook private lands and would lead to a clear loss of privacy – the proposal creates significant harm to the living conditions of nearby residents. 

·        Neither the design, scale nor form of the proposal were acceptable

·        Asked the Committee to refuse the application in accordance with the recommendation.

 

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

·        The proposal would provide 100% affordable units for local people in response to the need for sustainable dwellings.

·        The introduction of the apartments would free up housing for the County's young families.

·        That Medicare (the applicant) is already offering Gwynedd 6000 hours of domiciliary care per month, along with access to 84 dementia beds on their sites – this highlights their expertise and care for residents.

·        That the units are a means of keeping people in their own homes and taking pressure off nursing beds.

·        The applicant is ready to discuss this vital local housing provision with the officers.

·        That issues such as design, mass and amenity are the considerations that are holding back the decision – these should be outweighed by the obvious need for this type of housing in Cricieth and in Gwynedd.

·        That the delay by Gwynedd planning officers for additional information and revisions is economically unviable – the proposal must be viable to provide 100% affordable units.

·        Work could start immediately – the SAB (SuDS Approval Body) has already approved – the Planning Department is holding this vital proposal back.

·        That the revised plan is marginally larger than the existing property – this allows for the maximum possible number of units on site and makes the best use of the land.

·        Providing fewer than nine units would be unjust and impractical for a site of this size.

·        The design is considerate of materials and colour palettes that blend in with the local pattern – a contemporary and fit-for-purpose design.

·        For the committee to be aware, a planning inspector may agree with the applicant by stating that the provision of housing is more important than the design of the scheme, in cases where demand is very obvious.

·        Providing housing in an area where there is evidence of need should be more important than design – design is a matter of opinion, a trivial matter given the need.

·        A similar application was recently approved in North Wales where it was found that the need had won over size and design considerations.

·        The building contributes to a positive response to the housing crisis in the area.

 

         ch)         The Local Member, although having had apologised, had presented the following

                        observations:

·     That she opposed the application because of the visual impact of the development and its impact on the residential amenities of nearby neighbours

·    Health and Safety concern due to proximity to the railway

·    Parking concerns

·    It would cause disruption in light of any demolition

 

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

 

dd)      During the ensuing discussion, the following observation was made by a Member:

 

·     That Gwynedd planning policies were not trivial.

 

RESOLVED To delegate powers to the Head of Environment Department to refuse the application:

 

1.         ⁠It is not considered that the design of the proposal, in terms of layout, scale and mass adds to enhancing the character and appearance of the site context nor does it fully integrate within the context of the immediate streetscape and its prominent location in this part of Cricieth. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to the relevant requirements of policies PCYFF 2 and PCYFF 3 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan, 2017 together with part 2.6 of Technical Advice Note 12: Design, which states that design which is inappropriate in its context, or does not take advantage of opportunities to enhance the character, quality and function of an area, should not be accepted, as it will have detrimental effects on existing communities.

 

2.         Due to the scale, mass and location and certain features to be included in the proposed development, it would lead to an intrusive and domineering impact on adjacent properties and their curtilage. It is therefore considered that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of residents of local properties contrary to criterion 7 of policy PCYFF2 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan, 2017.