Change of use of part of the existing shop, install a new shop front and construct a two storey extension on top of the existing rear extension to provide 2 shops and accommodation for 65 students.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gwynfor Edwards
Link to relevant background documents
Minutes:
Change of use of part of the existing shop, installing a new shop front
and construction of a two-storey extension on top of the existing rear
extension to create two shops and accommodation for 64 students.
(a) The Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the
application, and noted that the site was located on the High Street within
Bangor City centre and close to the cathedral. It was noted that the building was
grade II registered and was also located within the Bangor Conservation Area.
It
was explained that even though the proposed extension was to the rear of the site and was relatively concealed from nearby public spaces,
this did not justify an extension of this scale, bulk,
form and design as it
was considered that it would have
a substantial impact on the appearance and character of the listed building. It was noted that
the Bangor Conservation Area was vast and included several grade I listed
buildings and the topography of Bangor meant that parts of the city were
visible from a distance, e.g. views from the main University building (which is
a grade I listed building) across the city.
It was considered that the flat-roof aspect would appear as an incongruous
feature from views across the city and was neither respectful of the listed
building located in front of it, nor of the street development patterns of the
surrounding area.
It
was noted that objections had been received based on overlooking from windows
and gardens. It was noted that the
proposal was considered to be contrary to policy B23 of the Gwynedd Unitary
Development Plan (GUDP) as the development would have a detrimental impact on
the residential amenities of nearby units and houses and that the development
would not ensure a sufficient standard of living for the occupants of the
development.
(b) It
was proposed and seconded to refuse the application.
During the ensuing discussion, the following main
observations were noted:
·
In relation to language assessment of applications,
it is the cumulative effect rather than the individual application that should
be assessed.
·
Would it be possible to receive information about
the numbers of student units allowed last year and for the two year period?
·
That the recommendation to refuse was strong, the
proposed extension would dominate the listed building and would ruin the views
in the City;
·
That the site needed to be developed but the rear
extension would have a detrimental impact on the listed building;
·
Concern with imposing a condition that prevented
students from bringing a vehicle within three miles of the development and
requesting that a transport plan be put in place before the development was
occupied, rather than providing parking spaces for the development as it would
not be possible to police it.
(c) In response to the above observations, the officers noted:-
·
As noted in the report, this proposal would not
result in any change to the City’s population as a student population already
existed and it was considered unlikely to have a significant impact on the
Welsh Language;
·
That information regarding the number of student
units and an assessment of the details were included in the report in paragraphs
5.5 to 5.16;
·
That, with regard to imposing a condition
preventing students from bringing a vehicle to within three miles of the
development and requiring that a transport plan be put in place before the
development was occupied, such conditions have already been imposed on consents
in Wales and England with the inspector also imposing such conditions;
·
That the reasons for refusing were robust.
RESOLVED to refuse the application.
Reasons:
1. The proposal, due to its scale, bulk,
form and design would have
a significant detrimental impact on the appearance
and setting of the Grade II listed building and the Conservation Area and, therefore, it is contrary to policies B2, B3, B4, B22 and B24
of the GUDP and the requirements
of the Welsh Office Circular 61/69.
2. The proposal is considered contrary to policy B23 as the development would have a detrimental
impact on the residential amenities of nearby units and
houses due to its scale, bulk,
form and design by having
a dominant impact, causing overlooking and loss of privacy
and that the development would not ensure a sufficient living standard for the occupiers of the development.
Supporting documents: