Demolition of existing social club building and erection of a three storey building with shop (including cafe, fascia signage and ATM) on ground floor and 10 one bedroomed flats above along with two storage containers (re-submission of application ref. C16/0157/11/LL)
LOCAL MEMBERS: Councillors Dylan Fernley and Nigel W.
Pickavance
Link
to relevant background documents
Minutes:
Demolition of existing social club building and erection of a
three-storey building with shop (including café, fascia signage and ATM) on
ground floor and 10 single bedroom flats on the floors above together with two
storage containers (re-submission of application C16/0157/11/LL)
(a) The
Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted
that the site was located within the development boundary of the Sub-regional
Centre of Bangor. It was noted that policy CH38 of the GUDP involved
safeguarding existing community facilities. Whilst accepting that a community
facility had been lost from this site due to problems with the viability of the
previous business, the new building would be a community facility in itself,
and by providing a broader range of services, there was potential to ensure a
more certain future for the site.
It was explained
that the policies of the Unitary Development Plan were supportive of the
principle of seeking to ensure positive developments on re-development sites
such as this one which was within urban development boundaries.
It
was noted that the proposed building would be substantially higher than the
existing building, and indeed it would be higher than all of the other
buildings in the vicinity. Attention was drawn to the fact that there were many
three-storey buildings in other parts of Maesgeirchen,
including blocks of flats of similar size, and it was not considered that a
building such as this would be different in nature to other buildings in on the
estate.
Although
local concerns about the proposal were appreciated, it was noted that the plan
had to be considered in the context of the site's urban location as well as its
previous use. It was not believed that the development would have an additional
significant detrimental effect on the amenities of neighbouring residents and
the development would therefore be in-keeping with Policies B23 and B33 of the
GUDP which aimed to protect the amenities of local residents.
Attention
was drawn to the fact that the Housing Market Assessment submitted with the
application alleged that there was a lack of one-bedroom units for individuals
or couples who wished to take their first step on the property ladder in the
local housing market. It was noted that
the site in general was suitable for living units and these flats would meet
with the local demand in an affordable way.
The
development complied with the GUDP for the reasons noted in the report.
(b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the
following main points:-
·
That there was a need for accommodation and a shop
in Maesgeirchen;
·
That there was demand for one-bedroom accommodation
which was not being met;
·
That he had experience of developing such
properties.
(c) Councillor Nigel Pickavance, local
member (not a member of this Planning Committee) objected to the application
and he made the following main points:-
·
That there was a high number of objections to the
proposal;
·
That it would be an over-development of the site;
·
That there were anti-social problems in a block of
flats located 4 miles from the site and considering that this site would not be
managed, he was concerned that similar problems would arise;
·
His concern that the building would overlook two
playing fields;
·
Suggested that a site visit should be undertaken;
·
That there was no need for a shop and café in the
area as these needs were being met by the current provision in Maesgeirchen.
Councillor Dylan Fernley, local member
(not a member of this Planning Committee), made the following main
points:-
·
Essential that a site visit was undertaken to
assess the situation;
·
That the development would have a harmful impact on
similar local businesses;
·
His concerns in terms of the increase in
anti-social problems as a result of the development;
·
The development would not be in keeping with the area
due to its height and the accommodation would not be suitable for the disabled;
·
That there was a need for accommodation in the area
but it had to be suitable and managed.
(ch) A proposal to
undertake a site visit was made. The member noted that a site visit should be
held due to the concerns of the Local Members and her concern that the building
would stand out due to the height of the site.
The
proposal was seconded.
RESOLVED to undertake a site visit.
Supporting documents: