Full application to demolish the existing building and erect a 3 storey building to provide 6 living units
LOCAL MEMBER:
Councillor Keith Jones
Minutes:
A full application to demolish the existing building and erect a
three-storey building to provide six living units
a)
The Development Control Officer elaborated on the
background of the application, noting that this was a full application to
demolish an existing building and associated structures to the rear of the site
and erect a new three-storey building that would provide six self-contained,
two-bedroom living units. The application was submitted to committee as the
size of the proposed building was larger than what could be discussed under the
delegated system.
It was explained
that the proposed development site was located on the ‘lowest’ part of the High
Street in Bangor and within the city’s development boundaries which had been
designated as a sub-regional centre in the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan
(GUDP) 2009.
Reference was made to the relevant planning history
together with additional observations.
It was highlighted that the previous application
had been refused on the grounds of the building's design and the impact of the
development on the setting of the listed building. There was extant listed building consent to
demolish the existing buildings on the site and complete work to renovate the
listed building. It was noted that the main issues under consideration was the
development's impact on the setting of the listed building and the impact on
the streetscape.
In the
context of the principle of the development, site of the proposed building was
located within the boundary of the city of Bangor but near to the defined town
boundary. It was highlighted that the basic
requirements of policy CH3 approved new houses on unallocated sites within the
development boundary of the sub-regional centre. Similarly, it was
highlighted that policy CH6 approved proposals to develop housing on windfall
sites for 5 units or more within the development boundaries of the sub-regional
centre which provided an appropriate element of affordable housing unless the
Planning Authority could not be satisfied.
As
part of the application, an assessment of the scheme's viability was received
which showed that it would not be viable to provide affordable units on the
site due to the construction costs and the final value of the units. It was
explained that the floor surface area of each unit was approximately 57m2.
The Supplementary Planning Guidance – Affordable Housing restricts two-bedroom
single-storey houses to 80m2. The size of the proposed units was
considerably less than the maximum affordable size of this type of unit. In addition, there was no parking provision
on the site and the amenity/outdoor area of each unit had been restricted to
small balconies. There was no open or attractive views of the site and due to
all these factors, it was considered that all the units would be of an
affordable nature anyway. Therefore, it is not reasonable or necessary to ask
for a provision of affordable housing through a formal arrangement such as a
106 Agreement on this site.
An objection had been received stating that the
development created further noise and disturbance to nearby residents. It was
explained that the site was being used by a construction company and it was
considered that this created more noise and disturbance than the proposed
residential use. There were residential houses or flats on either side of the
application site and therefore it was considered that a residential use of the
site was more suitable than its current use.
In the context of traffic and access, it was
highlighted that there was no parking provision included as part of the
proposal. Initial observations had been received from the Transportation Unit
objecting on grounds of lack of parking. In response, observations had been
received from the agent highlighting that national policies supported
development with less or no parking provision in accessible locations as the
development would encourage a reduction in the number of motor vehicles.
Although policy CH36 encouraged parking on sites or close to the site, the
policy also acknowledged that less provision could be acceptable in town
centres where there was a good choice of facilities, services and other
effective methods of travel apart from private cars.
b)
It was proposed and seconded to refuse
the application on the grounds of lack of parking, that the proposal
substantially disrupted the listed houses and the design was not in-keeping
with the area.
c)
In response to the refusal reasons, the
Senior Planning Service Manager highlighted that the Transportation Unit did
not object to the application and the Senior Development Control Officer -
Transport elaborated that if the applicant could
prove that the location was convenient then it was not possible to refuse.
In response to an observation about the design, the Senior
Planning Service Manager highlighted that the Conservation Officer had not
refused the application, but that the design was a matter of opinion.
After considering the observations, the
proposal was withdrawn as there were no grounds to refuse based on a lack of
parking spaces.
ch) It was proposed and seconded to refuse on the
grounds of design and the impact on the listed
houses
A
vote was taken and the proposal to refuse fell
d)
An amendment to approve the application
was proposed and seconded.
dd) During the ensuing discussion, the following
main observations were noted by members:
·
student flats were not under
consideration here
·
there was a real need for flats for
young families in Bangor
·
that not having parking spaces would
promote the local economy by encouraging people to use public services
·
that the proposed design was more
in-keeping than the existing.
e)
In response to the observations in
favour of approving the application, the Senior Planning Services Manager
highlighted that the plan overcame previous refusal reasons and that the scale
and impact of the proposal were acceptable.
RESOLVED to
delegate the right to the Senior Planning Manager to approve the application,
subject to receiving favourable observations from the Joint Planning Policy
Unit on the Language Statement and also subject to material planning conditions
relating to:
Conditions
1. Time
2.
In accordance with the plans and the ecology report
3.
Materials and
finishes
4.
Submit
details of and provide the drop off point prior to occupancy of flats
5.
Welsh Water
conditions
6.
Submission of a
photographic record of the existing building before its demolition.
Supporting documents: