Controversial plans for over 50 flats near town centre approved

Lewis Smith, Local democracy reporter

Plans to develop a block of 62 affordable flats near a town centre have been approved by the local council,  despite backlash from a number of local residents.

The approval from council bosses will now allow for new homes to be built at Sunnyside House, located between Angel Street and Sunnyside Road in Bridgend.

They were given the green light at a council planning committee on March 19 for the demolition of Sunnyside House in order to make way for the construction of a new five-storey apartment block.

The Sunnyside House property currently consists of a detached two-storey office building with a car park to the north and grassed area to the south.

It was constructed during the 1970s and was formerly occupied by Bridgend County Borough Council and the Water Board.

The plans said once completed the new building would be made up of 62 one-bedroom units along with landscaping, cycle and car parking, drainage, and other associated works.

They were put forward by the Codi Group, formerly known as Linc Housing Association, for the site close to Bridgend’s Halo Life Centre and the Sunnyside Wellness Village development which is currently under construction.

It follows a revised application which was first submitted to the council in 2022 for 65 flats to be spread over two apartment blocks.

However the controversial application was brought before the committee after a number of concerns were raised by local residents with the authority receiving 33 representations of objection.

These focused on fears over a potential loss of privacy with the building overlooking neighbouring properties as well as a lack of parking, dominance of the street scene, and issues with overshadowing.

Bridgend Town Council also asked the proposal be refused citing a public meeting where those present asked that the strongest possible objection be lodged.

A number of councillors also spoke against the plans, particularly over the issues with parking, arguing that 30 parking spaces were not enough for a block of 62 apartments and noting all future tenants would have the legal right to own a car.

In a joint statement Cllr Steven Bletsoe and Cllr Tim Wood said this was a “glaring oversight that disregards the critical needs of the community”.

In response officers said the development was in line with both national and local planning policies adding that with its proximity to the town centre it could hardly be in a more sustainable location close to services and facilities.

When it came to issues with on-site parking they said the provision could be reduced due to this sustainable location and a national expectation to prioritise walking and cycling.

The report added that because the neighbouring properties were approximately 28m away from the apartment building it would not have “such an overbearing, overshadowing, or overlooking impact to warrant the refusal of the planning application in this case”.

A representative speaking on behalf of the application described it as a positive, sustainable, and policy-compliant proposal that helped address a shortage of affordable housing.

The plans were later approved after a lengthy debate and a vote from members who passed it with a vote of five for, three against, and one abstention.