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: Councillor Nigel W Pickavance and
Councillor Dylan Fernley
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 one-bedroom flats on the floors above together
with two storage containers (re-submission of application C16/0157/11/LL)
a)
The Development Control Manager elaborated on the
background of the application and noted that the decision had been deferred at
the Committee on 24 April 2017 so that the Committee could visit the site. It was
reiterated that this was a re-submission of a full application for the
demolition of the existing Maesgeirchen Social Club
building and to erect a three-storey building in its place. The previous
application (C16/0157/11/LL) had been withdrawn prior to determination. The
development would include the following elements:
·
Shop on the ground floor
including 200m2 of retail floor area allocated for convenience
goods, cafe counter and seating area, along with a storage / office / canteen area
for staff - it was proposed to open the shop for 24 hours a day, seven days a
week.
·
10 one-bedroom flats on the
floors above (5 on each floor). Each flat would include a bedroom, a living
/dining room, kitchen, bathroom and hall and each with a floor area of
approximately 45m2.
·
Seven parking spaces would
be earmarked, including two spaces for disabled drivers, along with separate
spaces to store commercial and residential waste.
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 that would provide a broad
range of services and 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 within urban development boundaries.
It
was noted that the proposal would be substantially higher than the current
building; however, it was noted that there were many other three-storey
buildings in other parts of Maesgeirchen, including a
block of flats of a similar size. Consequently, it was not considered that the
building would be of a different feel to other buildings in the estate.
Although
local concerns about the proposal were appreciated, the plan had to be
considered in the context of the site's urban location as well as its previous
use. It was not considered that the development would have an additional
significant detrimental effect on the amenities of neighbouring residents and
that the development would 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 was suitable for living units
and that the flats would meet the local demand in an affordable way.
The
development complied with the GUDP for the reasons noted in the report.
b)
Councillor Dylan Fernley, local member
(not a member of this Planning Committee) objected to the application and he
made the following main points:-
·
That he was disappointed that neither the report
nor the presentation referred to the proposal's proximity to the sheltered
housing and bungalows for the elderly located nearby
·
That the development would have a harmful impact on
similar local businesses
·
That the development would lead to an increase in
anti-social problems
·
That the local community strongly opposed - no
letters of support had been received
·
The building would not suit the area due to its
height and the accommodation would not be suitable for the disabled
·
What the area needed was effectively managed
suitable accommodation
Councillor
Nigel Pickavance, local member (not a member of this
Planning Committee) objected to the application and he made the following main
points:-
·
That he represented the objections of Maesgeirchen residents to the proposal and that those
concerns had been highlighted at a local meeting
·
That it would be an over-development of the site
and a prominent building;
·
That there was no need for a shop and café in the
area - these needs were being met by the current provision
·
There would be an increase in traffic and parking
·
There would be no controlled tenancy over the flats
·
No disabled access to the building and no fire
doors
·
That the location was adjacent to two playing
fields
(ch)
It was
proposed and seconded to refuse the application as the proposal was an
over-development and as the size of the building caused concern.
d) During the ensuing discussion, the following main observations
were noted by members:
·
The Local Members were thanked for
their observations and for their work
·
That the supermarket would harm the
local economy
·
That the size of the building would
disrupt nearby amenities
·
That the proposal would lead to an
increase in anti-social behaviour
·
The proposal's impact on the amenities
of local residents from being open 24/7
RESOLVED to refuse the application on the grounds that the proposal is an over-development that would have a detrimental impact on visual and residential amenities.
Supporting documents: