Change of use and extension of existing A3 pub into 15 self contained student living accommodation.
Local Member: Councillor D. Gwynfor Edwards
Minutes:
Change use and extend existing A3 public house to 15
self-contained student accommodation units.
(a)
The Development Control Manager elaborated on
the background of the application, noting that the building had been used in
the past as a public house, but it was currently empty following fire damage in
the last few years. It was noted that
the proposal involved constructing an extension above part of the existing
ground floor to provide additional floors with the design in-keeping with the
rest of the building.
Attention was drawn to the additional observations that
had been received.
It was noted that the application area specifically
formed part of Bangor High Street, with various flats above shops and
commercial buildings, with a residential area directly near the site which is
popular with students, with a number of the conventional housing units being
used by students rather than local families.
It was reported that the Joint Planning Policy Unit had
been gathering evidence in order to facilitate the work of forming a policy in
the proposed Joint Local Development Plan. It was noted that the latest details
in terms of the number of housing units used by students, houses of multiple
occupation and appropriate accommodation for students that existed in the
Deiniol ward had been noted in an amended version of Appendix 1 of the
additional observation sheet.
It was noted that there was clear evidence to prove the
need for purpose-built student accommodation, and it was considered reasonable
that providing purpose-built accommodation would mean that students would
choose to live in the purpose-built accommodation rather than conventional
housing. It was not considered
that approving the proposal would cause an imbalance in the local population,
especially given its location in the City centre and behind the High Street. It was not considered that the
development would cause significant harm to the local area’s character and
amenities.
It was considered that the proposal was a plan that
ensured the future of a considerably substantial building in Bangor and
conformed to all relevant policies in the GUDP and that the proposal was
unlikely to have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of the local
area nor on any nearby property.
(b) The following main points were made by
Councillor Lesley Day who was acting as a local member (who was not a member of
this Planning Committee):-
·
There were 3 elements to her objection to the development
namely – the lack of demand for student accommodation, impact on local
amenities and the community and an over-development of the site and the impact
on local residents;
·
Student numbers had decreased annually since
2011-12;
·
She had received information from the
University’s Vice-chancellor that there was approximately 8,500 full-time
students and that the number of part-time students was irrelevant as it was
unlikely that they would require accommodation;
·
The President of Bangor Students Union had
informed her that they had a new policy noting there was no need or desire for
more student accommodation;
·
There was plenty of accommodation for students
in Bangor with provision for at least 8,878 students in different forms and
that this did not include accommodation in Bethesda, Menai Bridge or nearby
areas;
·
The Joint Local Development Plan recommended
that no more than 25% of student accommodation should be in the Deiniol Ward
but there was more purpose-built student accommodation and houses of multiple
occupation already with 1540 beds. Although
the plan was not in place it should be considered and work should be undertaken
towards it;
·
Purpose-built student accommodation was more
expensive than private houses of multiple occupation;
·
The University and students were welcomed in
Bangor;
·
Council tax was not paid on student
accommodation and they used more services than ordinary residents and in a
period of service cutbacks this was relevant;
·
Policy CH33 of the GUDP needed to be addressed
and it was anticipated that pedestrian access would be difficult when the
construction work would take place given that lorries delivered goods to the
shopping centre;
·
Policy C4 of the GUDP – She had concerns in terms
of safety and that the building with the proposed extension would not be large
enough for 15 units;
·
Policy B24 of the GUDP – The size and design of
the building was unsuitable with some rooms being very small and there was no
fire escape;
·
Policy CH30 of the GUDP – There was no access
for everyone;
·
Policy A3 of the GUDP – There were so many
houses of multiple occupation in the area and this proposal would add to the
decimation of Ffordd y Ffynnon community which were able to share their Welsh
culture and history in the public house;
·
She asked the Committee to refuse the
application.
It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application
contrary to the officers’ recommendation as the proposal would be an
over-development of the site and would have a detrimental impact on the
amenities of local residents and the area.
(c) During the discussion, the following observations were made:
·
A high density in terms of the numbers of
accommodation in the development would mean that some rooms would be small;
·
There was a lack of parking spaces;
·
The information submitted by the Local Member
was welcomed and it was agreed that there was a lack of demand for student
accommodation;
·
Concern in terms of safety as only a single set
of stairs was proposed to be included in the development;
·
Given the fire that had occurred in the
building, there was a concern regarding fire safety as the inclusion of a fire
escape had not been proposed;
·
The building had not been for sale long enough
for someone to buy it and keep it as a public house or for another use;
·
There was a lot of accommodation for students in
the area and that the Local Member’s statistics indicated there was no need for
more;
·
They had not been persuaded in terms of the
demand for student accommodation;
·
There was a need to recognise that students at
Ysbyty Gwynedd as well as Bangor University needed accommodation;
·
Reference was made to an application in relation
to a public house in Felinheli which had been considered by the Committee on
more than one occasion as the building had not been for sale for long enough.
(ch) In response to these observations, the
Senior Planning Service Manager
noted
that:-
·
The building was currently empty and there was
no specific planning policy involved with safeguarding the current use;
·
The development would require a building
regulation permission and licences in relation to fire and health and safety
matters;
·
The proposed use was acceptable;
·
Statistics from the Joint Planning Policy Unit
evidenced the need;
·
In relation to the public house in Felinheli,
there was a services protection policy for villages but there was no similar
policy for Bangor City.
(d) In response to a question from a member
regarding the Linguistic and Community Statement, the Senior Solicitor noted
that the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning and the Welsh Language
requested that developers provided a statement for some applications which was
in addition to what was noted under Technical Advice Note 20 – The Welsh Language of Planning Policy Wales.
RESOLVED
to refuse the application contrary to the officers’
recommendation.
Reasons:
The proposal would be an over-development of the site.
Policy CH39 of the GUDP – the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of local residents and the area.
Supporting documents: