Residential
Development of 30 Units (to include 12 affordable units) together with
infrastructure, parking spaces, access, footpaths and amenity area.
LOCAL MEMBER:
Councillor Gareth A Roberts
Decision:
To refuse the application
Reasons:
Minutes:
A residential development of 30 units
(to include 12 affordable units) together with infrastructure, parking areas,
access, paths and an open space
Attention was drawn to the late observations form. It was highlighted
that appendix 1 (Committee report 20/10/20) of the cooling-off report had been
included in the late observations form together with a written submission of
the applicant's observations and the objector’s observations as well as the
comments of the Joint Planning Policy Unit.
A presentation of the plans subject to the application was given and the amended
plan was highlighted that included children's play equipment on the open space.
a) The
Assistant Head of Planning and Environment explained that the application
discussed at the committee on 20 October 2020 had been
refused, contrary to the officers' recommendation. The application had
been refused for 6 reasons and consequently the
application had been referred to a cooling-off period.
Information
was re-submitted to the Committee highlighting the
policies, risks and options available to them. Reference was
made to an amended linguistic statement that complied with the
requirements of PS1 and the relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance together
with a plan showing the children's play area and equipment within the
application site. In addition, a second consultation was
conducted with all the relevant consultees for them to have an opportunity to
confirm their views and observations on the application for 30 houses (2 or 3
bedroom semi-detached houses) with 12 of the houses being 100% affordable and
18 of the houses being open market housing and 5 being offered for intermediate
rent or a 'rent to buy' scheme. This would enable eligible families to
rent a house with the option to buy in the future and within the Bangor
development boundary.
Reference
was made to Part 3 of the report that confirmed the relevant policies together
with the responses to the 6 reasons for refusal. It was added that the report included
detailed evidence of the need for housing with the Housing Service and the
Joint Planning Policy confirming the need for affordable housing in the area
together with the general need for 2 or 3 bedroom
housing. The proposal therefore complied with policies TAI 1, 8 and 15.
In
the context of flooding matters, NRW, the Council's Water Unit and Welsh Water were re-consulted and confirmation was received that they
had no objection to the application. The Public Protection Service was re-consulted regarding land contamination and it was
reported they did not have any objection to the application and they were
satisfied for the remedial strategy to be implemented by imposing a standard
planning condition. It was added that the Transportation Unit had no objection in
terms of road safety, traffic flow and the capacity and suitability of Ffordd Pen y Ffridd and the Ysbyty Gwynedd roundabout.
It
was considered that the contents of the report responded to and overcame the 6 reasons for refusal. No objections had been received from
the statutory consultees or the other relevant consultees and therefore in the
opinion of the Assistant Head, there was no sufficient evidence to support the 6 reasons for refusal.
Consequently, reference was made to the possible risks to the Council as a result of refusing the application referring
specifically to the possible substantial financial risks for the Council in an
appeal, as it was not considered that there was evidence to defend the reasons
for refusal. It was
also confirmed that the applicant had submitted an appeal to the
inspectorate and it was understood that the applicant intended to make an
application for costs.
In
section 5 of the report the options open to the
Committee were listed. It was emphasised that there were risks with each of the
refusal reasons and the risk increased as the number of reasons to refuse
increased. It was reported that should
the Committee decide to refuse the application, then in accordance with usual
procedure the proposer and seconder would have to defend the appeal on behalf
of the Council, however, Officers would give advice and support to Members as far
as possible, as had occurred with past appeals.
It
was stressed that the recommendation was to approve
the application and there was sufficient evidence to confirm that the
development complied with the relevant planning policies.
b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following points:
·
Following canvassing work, holding discussions and meetings locally
there was sufficient evidence that there
was no local need for the development
- no one locally supported the development.
·
All the arguments had
already been submitted.
·
The site was not suitable for a housing development
·
The application needed to be refused
c) Proposed (Councillor Gruffydd Williams) and seconded (Councillor Simon
Glyn) to refuse the application on the grounds of the negative impact on the
Welsh Language and transportation matters (Pen y Ffridd
road was unsuitable for access to a development of this size).
ch) During the ensuing discussion, the following observations
were made by Members:
·
No sufficient amendments to the
original report / assessment
·
12 affordable houses not enough - the rest of the houses were open
market housing
·
Why consider 'Bangor' as a community? Bangor
was a patchwork of individual communities and therefore it was unsuitable to
set a basis for Bangor as one entity
·
It
was necessary to further consider the impact on the Welsh language
·
The
Ysbyty Gwynedd Roundabout would
reach capacity as a result of the improvements to schools - the impact of this on the infrastructure
had not been evidenced - a back-up plan was required if there was congestion
·
There was a need to respect the wishes of
the local community who objected the development as well as the views of the
Local Members
·
The infrastructure was not sufficient
·
The application was fragmented - there would be a detrimental effect and
impact on the Welsh language together with transportation
·
The unsuitability of the narrow road into the
estate had to be considered
·
That the proposal complied with the
Gwynedd Council Housing Strategy and provided housing for local people very
similar to Yr Hendre
development, Caernarfon
·
The site was located within the
development boundary of the Local Development Plan
·
No evidence to object - the argument for refusal
was weak
d) In
response to an observation that the report, in the context of the risks to the
Council, was threatening in its nature, the Monitoring Officer noted that the
Planning Service had a responsibility to highlight the planning policy
situation, the evidence that was to hand including possible risks to the
Council, as this was the purpose of the procedure to submit a cooling-off
report as the report explains.
dd) In response to a question regarding if consideration had been given to
the capacity of local surgeries, the Planning Manager noted that the Planning
Service sought to consult with the Local Health Board on major applications,
however, a response was not received every time.
e) In
accordance with the Procedural Rules, the following vote to refuse the application was recorded:
In favour of the proposal to refuse the application
(7): Councillors Elwyn Edwards, Simon
Glyn, Louise Hughes, Gareth M Jones, Huw W Jones, Eirwyn Williams and Gruffydd
Williams
Against the proposal to refuse the application (3): Councillors Edgar Owen, Anne Lloyd Jones and
Stephen Churchman
Abstention (1): Councillor
Eric M. Jones
RESOLVED to refuse the application contrary
to the recommendation
Reasons:
1. A
negative impact on the Welsh language.
2. Pen
y Ffridd Road is unsuitable for access to a
development of this size
Supporting documents: