Provision of 38 residential units (including a
mixture of open market units and affordable units), parking accommodation and
access.
LOCAL MEMBERS: Councillors Mair Rowlands and
Catrin Wager
Minutes:
Provide 38 residential
units (including a mix of open market and affordable units), parking spaces and
access.
(a)
The
Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that
the site was a plot of derelict land opposite Farrar Road and Deiniol Road in
the City of Bangor. She drew attention
to the fact that extant planning permission existed on the site for 49 one and
two-bedroom units, which had been approved on appeal.
She highlighted that the
design principles of the proposed building followed those principles that had
been discussed by the Planning Inspector on the appeal. Plans were shown in
relation to the extant planning permission and the application before the
committee. She noted that the plans for the application before the committee
was an improvement in terms of the design, with a reduction of 11 units, and
that the form and height of the building were relatively similar; therefore, it
would not lead to a different impact on neighbours. She acknowledged that there
were some local concerns regarding the scale and materials of the development;
however, it was not considered that these would be inappropriate within the
site's urban context. She referred to a
recent decision to approve the appeal for the former Jewson site in Bangor,
where it was acknowledged, due to the site's location in a city centre, that an
element of community overlooking would derive from such a development. She noted that the proposal was considered
acceptable and that it would not have an unacceptable impact on the residential
or general amenities of local residents, given that the form and density would
not be changed.
She drew attention to the
fact that there were no concerns in terms of transport and access. She elaborated that there were 38 parking
spaces included in the proposal and that the site, due to its location in
Bangor City Centre, had public transport links and was close to facilities.
She noted that Cartrefi
Cymunedol Gwynedd (CCG), as part of the application, had submitted an
Affordable Housing Statement and a Housing Mix Statement. She noted that the
information in these documents was consistent with the need that had been
identified by the Housing Strategic Unit.
She explained that the development would receive a Social Housing Grant from
Welsh Government. She elaborated that the proposal would provide 23 two-bedroom
units and 15 one-bedroom units, with nine of them being social rented housing,
17 being intermediate rent housing and 12 being open market rent housing.
She elaborated that a
Community and Language Statement had been submitted with the application,
despite the fact that this was not mandatory. She explained that since the
application had been registered, the Supplementary Planning Guidance:
Maintaining and Creating Unique and Sustainable Communities, had been
adopted. She noted that a further
statement had been received, which was in line with the requirements of the
Supplementary Planning Guidance. It was
reported that observations had been received from the Language Unit which
acknowledged that it was a thorough statement, that CCG would manage the site
and that the impact on the Welsh language would be neutral with the proposal
meeting local need.
She noted that an
educational contribution was not mandatory, but the applicant was required to
provide a contribution of £8525.39 for the provision of open spaces to enhance,
maintain or create suitable play areas off the site.
The development was
acceptable in terms of relevant local and national policies for the reasons
noted in the report.
(b) Taking advantage of the
right to speak, the applicant’s representative noted the following main
points:-
·
That
extant planning permission existed for the site and that the proposal submitted
would lead to a reduction of 11 units;
·
That
the design of the units met the affordable housing requirements;
·
That
38 parking spaces would be provided as part of the development;
·
That
the proposal would meet the local need for affordable units, with 68% of the
units being affordable;
·
That
the site had been derelict for 10 years following the demolition of the former
building and the development would improve the site;
·
That
the applicant had collaborated with the Housing Strategic Unit and that the
proposal would address local need;
·
That
in accordance with the policy, additional priority was given to those with a
local connection;
·
That
the proposal would provide modern units in the City centre.
(c) A local member (not a
member of this Planning Committee) noted the following main points:-
·
That
she was also speaking on behalf of Councillor Catrin Wager and local residents;
·
That
she was glad that the site was being developed;
·
That
the one and two-bedroom units would be mixed in terms of rent in the hope of
meeting local need;
·
Concern
that the design was not in keeping with the area in terms of its height and
appearance;
·
That
38 parking spaces would be provided as part of the development; however, it was
possible that the provision was insufficient if you also considered the cars of
visitors;
·
That
parking spaces would have to be lost along Farrar Road by painting yellow lines
near the bin storage area;
·
That
overlooking, shadowing and loss of light would derive from the development;
·
That
the main concern locally was the increase in traffic. That the access to the
site would create an impact as there were existing problems with two traffic
streams merging onto Deiniol Road. It could add to the traffic flow of the ASDA
roundabout which was busy and hazardous at times;
·
That
local residents had not travelled to Pwllheli for the meeting as they relied
upon public transport;
·
That
although they were not planning matters, matters relating to a retaining wall
and the impact of developing the site on nearby houses needed to be noted, as
some owners had had to pay for work following damage caused from the demolition
of the former building;
·
That
the site was strategically important and would provide affordable units;
·
That
she was supportive of the application; however, full consideration needed to be
given to the local concerns;
·
That
the Committee should consider holding a site visit, especially to see the
traffic situation.
(ch)
It was proposed and seconded to approve
the application.
During the ensuing discussion, the
following main observations were noted by members:
·
That
the Transportation Unit did not object to the proposal and that the development
was an improvement to the plan approved on appeal;
·
Dissatisfaction
with the design, density and scale of the development; however, it was an
improvement to what had been permitted on appeal in terms of density, it had
been set back and there was a more open elevation to the front. Acknowledgement
of the observations of the local member, and despite not being wholly satisfied
with the proposal, the member supported the application;
·
The
development was not in accordance with policy PCYFF5 of the Gwynedd and
Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan (JLDP); the design reduced the use of
energy and satisfied the requirements of PCYFF6; however, it did not meet the
requirements of PCYFF5 in terms of sustainable energy. That water harvesting
measures were included in the proposal; however, it should be possible to
incorporate more sustainable energy elements in the development, such as solar
panels;
·
The
applicant could be informed of the member's comments in terms of incorporating
more sustainable energy elements;
·
That
the plan before the committee was an improvement to the extant permission;
however, the location of the access to the site was dangerous. This section of
the road was exceptionally busy, with cars crossing and a bus stop on the other
side of the road, and it was likely that cars would pass the buses as they
stopped. It was anticipated that accidents would happen regularly on the road.
They understood that if the application would be refused, the application would
be approved on appeal;
·
Satisfied
with the principle of the development; however, concern in terms of the size
and density of the development, along with transport matters. The access was
located in the most dangerous location. Given the damage to nearby buildings as
a result to demolishing the former social club, would it be possible to impose
a condition to ensure that no damage was done to nearby buildings deriving from
the development? Encouraged the applicant to collaborate with Menter Iaith
Bangor. Would it be possible to hold a Committee meeting in Bangor when major
applications in the Bangor area were being submitted before the committee?
·
That
assurance was needed in terms of the safety of the access;
·
That
the Senior Development Control Officer - Transport had noted his professional
opinion regarding the access and it was acceptable;
·
That
Cartrefi Cymunedol Gwynedd had policies regarding sustainability. In terms of the rent levels of the
intermediate social flats, in accordance with CCG's Intermediate Rent Policy,
would it be possible to receive confirmation in terms of rent levels?
(d) In response to the above
observations, the officers noted:
·
That there was extant permission for a substantially larger development
on the site and in terms of refuse/recycling collections, the lorries would
operate in the same way as they did on other streets, by staying in the middle
of the road for a period of time. There
was no need to paint more yellow lines; however, the situation could be
reviewed should matters arise;
·
That the access was acceptable as the road was one-way and there was no
need to cross in the opposite direction of the traffic flow, except for when
vehicles went in the direction of Farrar Road. It was estimated that between
100 - 150 additional movements would derive from the development when
considering the thousands of current daily movements;
·
That there was extant planning permission for a development of 49 units
that would provide eight affordable units on the site already. There was an
acknowledged need for affordable units in the area and the proposal would
provide mixed units in terms of their type and occupancy;
·
Understood the concerns in terms of design; however, there was a need to
bear in mind that the size, design and bulk matters had been aired as part of
the appeal and it was concluded that the design was acceptable. That the design
of the building was a better design to what had been approved on appeal;
·
In terms of sustainability, a balanced assessment was undertaken, giving
consideration to policies PS5, PCYFF5 and PCYFF6 of the JLDP. It was not
possible for the proposal to satisfy policy PCYFF5 in full due to the density
of the development. It may be possible
to incorporate solar panels into the development; however, it would lead to
changing the design of the building. The proposal met policy PCYFF6 in terms of
energy conservation and was in accordance with the requirements of Sustainable Drainage
Systems (SUDS). Accepted the member's views; however, having considered the
extant planning permission and the commitment of the applicant to other
policies in terms of sustainability, the proposal was acceptable;
·
That the access had been approved as part of the extant planning
permission for 49 units, along with more recent permission to use the site as a
car park;
·
In terms of CCG's Intermediate Rent Policy, the rent levels of the
intermediate social flats would be 80% of the value of the open market rent.
RESOLVED to delegate powers to the Senior
Planning Manager to approve the application subject to the applicant completing
a Section 106 agreement to ensure a financial contribution for the provision of
open spaces and the following conditions:-
1. Five years.
2. In accordance with the
revised plans.
3. Samples of materials and
colours for the building to be agreed with the LPA.
4. Highway conditions for
parking and the access.
5. No unit to be occupied until
the sustainable water system has been completed and is fully operational.
6. Soft and hard landscaping.
7. Development to be undertaken
in accordance with the mitigation measures referred to in the Preliminary
Ecological Report.
8. Working hours limited to 8:00
- 18:00 during the week, 08:00 - 13:00 on a Saturday and no working at all on
Sundays and Bank Holidays.
9. Agree on details regarding
Welsh names for the development together with advertising signage informing of
and promoting the development within and outside the site.
10. Ensure that a bin area is
provided and remains within the site prior to the occupancy of the units.
11. Ensure a plan/arrangements to
provide the affordable units.
12. Opaque glass condition
Supporting documents: