Change of use of existing building to create a cafe and restaurant and create 29 self contained student living units, together with the partial demolition of rear buildings and erection of new building to create 116 self contained student living units with associated Works
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor David Gwynfor Edwards
Minutes:
Change
of use of existing building to create a café and restaurant and create 29
self-contained student living units, together with the partial demolition of
rear buildings and erection of new building to create 116 self-contained
student living units with ancillary facilities
Six members of the
Planning Committee had visited the site.
(a) The Senior Development
Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application, noting that
the application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting held in
July 2016 in order to undertake a site visit and correct figures in the
report. The proposal intended to change
the use and to adapt an exiting building to create a café and restaurant and
create 29 self-contained student living units within the existing building,
together with the partial demolition of rear buildings and erection of new
building to create 116 self-contained student living units with ancillary
facilities.
It was noted that the development would
include a bin and recycling area to the side of the building which would be
concealed behind a wall along with the creation of a bicycle storage area but
no parking provision was included in the proposal. It was noted that several buildings had been
erected to the rear of the original building over the years and it is proposed
to demolish them in order to erect a new five-storey building. The new building would be separate from the
main building but both would be connected with a glass link on the side, and an
open space between the original building and this building.
A
listed building application had been submitted but this application would need
to be dealt with separately, namely the next item on the agenda.
Attention
was drawn to the late observations that had been received from the applicant's
agent and also observations had been received from the Local Member expressing
his support to the proposed development.
It
was noted that this was a listed building and that it was located within the
Bangor Conservation Area. It was added that the building was empty following
its use as a nightclub and dentist surgery. A substantially sized building was
located around the building but it was noted that a number of listed buildings,
including the library, were located behind the site. Reference was made to the
relevant policies and the responses to the public consultations within the
report.
In
terms of principle in the context of student accommodation in Bangor, it was
explained that no specific policy related to this type of application but it
was emphasised that the Unitary Development Plan did not prevent this type of
accommodation.
It
was noted that the site was within the development boundary and the principle
of the development was acceptable and this viewpoint had been confirmed by
Inspectors in an appeal decision in Lôn Bopty. It was acknowledged that the
site was in an accessible area, close to shops, public transport and University
buildings. Therefore, in terms of its location, planning officers were of the
view that the proposal was acceptable in principle.
It
was noted that the proposal to provide a café and restaurant was acceptable,
subject to including an additional condition, namely A3 which restricted the
proposal from being changed to A1 use (shops) without planning permission as
the site was outside the defined boundary of Bangor.
It
was considered that the proposal to re-use and adapt the listed building was to
be welcomed and was a way to secure its future use but that protecting the
appearance of listed buildings was a statutory responsibility and thus there
would be a need to weigh up these needs carefully.
It
was noted that the rear building was substantial in size and was modern but it
was not believed that it had a harmful impact on the appearance, character or
setting of the listed building or conservation area due to its location in the
rear as a subservient extension. The
original building and the library would remain as the main focus of the
structure with the rear extension blending into the background.Therefore, it
was not considered that the development would be harmful to the setting of the
listed buildings. Attention was drawn
to the list of conditions which asked for agreement on the finishes and that
the planning officers were not entirely comfortable with the colours and
materials offered but that an agreement could be reached regarding them by means
of appropriate conditions.
It
was noted that the Transportation Unit had raised concerns regarding the lack
of parking spaces and had noted that accommodation tenants should be prevented
from using their cars during their time in Bangor and that this could be
ensured by means of a planning condition.
A
community and linguistic statement had been received with the application and
it was noted that the Joint Planning Policy Unit was of the opinion that the
development was unlikely to lead to a substantial growth in the population to
the extent that it would have a detrimental impact on the Welsh language.
Initial
objections had been received from Natural Resources Wales and Welsh Water but
they had now withdrawn their objections based on relevant conditions regarding
the finished floor level and reaching agreement regarding the drainage of the
site.
The
planning officers’ recommendation was to approve the application subject to
relevant conditions and an additional A3 condition to restrict the use of the
restaurant.
(b) Taking advantage of the
right to speak, the objector noted the following main points:
·
Concerns regarding the proposal on behalf of Bangor City Council which
opposed the development invariably as it was an over-development of the site.
That the site was unsuitable as it was a central building within the city. That
the old post office had its own qualities and was listed and the proposed
development would not make the best use of a listed building. The building had
a special architectural design and its beauty was very visible as you entered
the city.
·
That there was no need for further student accommodation due to the lack
of demand for it. That the Library was located to the rear of the site which
was another attractive listed building, along with the former County Council
Museum and the former town hall. Should this development be approved, it would
have a detrimental impact on the area due to its character, size and potential
noise. That the proposed development was oppressive and out of character within
the area.
·
That there was no parking provision in the vicinity - that it was a very
busy area, close to the taxi rank and bus station and that it would certainly
cause an increase in traffic and lead to a substantial problem, in particular
considering the development of 145 units and a café. It appeared that there was
an absence of a coordinated planning policy to allocate student accommodation
and this led to occasional specifications such as this application where they
did not blend into the environment.
(c) Taking advantage of the
right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main points:
·
Whilst
acknowledging that the site was special and listed, it had been ensured that
lengthy discussions had taken place with the Planning officers and those
discussions continued.
·
That
the CADW officer had been a part of the discussion and it was confirmed that
they supported the development.
·
Whilst
aware of the concern regarding the number of sites for student accommodation,
assurance was given that a thorough investigation of the need had been
undertaken and this had been reiterated with statistics by the planning
officers.
·
There
would certainly come a time when there would be an excess of student
accommodation, however, there was currently a need for this type of
development.
·
Since
the post office had moved, it was noted that various uses had been made of the
building, namely a nightclub and restaurant, a dentist surgery, a restaurant
and offices; none of which had been successful and therefore there was a need
to obtain a sustainable and feasible building.
·
That
the proposed development was an opportunity to welcome the need and create and
raise living standards, and safeguarded the future of this site at the same
time.
(ch) It was proposed and seconded to approve
the application.
(d) During the ensuing
discussion the following points were highlighted in favour of approving the
application:
·
Following
the site visit, it appeared that the development to the rear blended into the
listed design.
·
That
a comprehensive report had been submitted before the committee and that
planning officers had spent a lot of time ensuring that the development
complied with the requirements but questioned why the observations of Cadw did not form a part of the
report.
·
Allegations
were often made that there was a sufficient provision of student accommodation
in Bangor; however, there was no evidence of this and Bangor City Council seemed
to invariably object to such developments.
·
It
was emphasised that Bangor was dependent on student investment in terms of the
economy and that accommodation had to be provided for them.
·
The
importance of safeguarding what was there already.
·
Should
relevant conditions be imposed, one could not see how the development could be
refused.
(dd) The following points were noted against the
recommendation to approve:
·
Whilst
supportive of the proposal to convert the former Post Office, approving the new
building and the extension would be an act of vandalism against a listed
building in Bangor.
·
Concern
regarding the materials, namely the zinc panels and the use of bricks.
·
Concerns
regarding the lack of parking spaces and it was questioned whether preventing
tenants at the accommodation from using cars during their time in Bangor was a
weak argument and that they would park their cars on other streets.
·
The
following policies were quoted: B2 which
ensured that proposals did not cause substantial damage to the special
architectural or historic character of Listed Buildings;
B3
which ensured that proposals had no adverse effect on the setting of Listed
Buildings and that they conformed to a number of criteria aimed at safeguarding
the special character of the Listed Building and the local environment; B4
which ensured that proposals within conservation areas, or proposals that
affect their setting, were refused unless they aimed to maintain or enhance the
character or appearance of the conservation area and its setting.
·
Concern
that no consideration had been given to the Conservation Area and that the
proposed development would not only affect the Library but would also affect
the other listed buildings located near the proposed development, namely the
University, the Cathedral, the Diocese Centre and the Memorial Hall.
·
The
application could not be supported as it did not comply with policies B2, B3
and B4 of the Council's policies which related to safeguarding ancient
buildings.
(e) In response, the Senior
Planning Service Manager acknowledged the observations and noted that the
design was the issue that always split opinions and that many concerns had been
raised by Members in the context of policies.
It was confirmed that no formal observations had been received from
CADW. It was noted that the Committee
was free to voice its opinion but that the recommendation of the planning
officers was robust. The concerns
relating to the design were accepted where there was no reference to the use or
the need. The Committee was reminded that three appeal decisions had been
upheld recently, two of which had incurred costs to the Council, namely at Lôn
Bopty, Three Crowns and Railway Institute, with all three applications dealing
with this type of student accommodation developments. Therefore, it was
emphasised that the Committee had to ensure valid reasons for refusal so that
they could be upheld in an appeal. It
was further noted that from previous experience, the risk of costs for this
type of reason was low.
(f)
A
vote was taken on the proposal to approve the application; however, this
proposal fell.
(ff)
It was proposed and seconded to refuse because elements of the new building and
the extension would affect the scale, size, materials and setting of the
existing listed building and the harmful impact on the conservation area which
was contrary to policies B2, B3 and B4 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan.
A vote was taken on this proposal.
Resolved:
To refuse the application as
elements of the new building and the extension would have an impact on the
scale, size, materials and setting of the existing listed building and the
harmful impact on the conservation area, contrary to policies B2, B3 and B4 of
the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan.
Supporting documents: