Agenda item
Residential development
of six dwellings, access and associated works
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth T Morris Jones
Link
to relevant background documents
Decision:
To refuse the application
Reasons:
1.
The housing provision in Morfa Nefyn is
already significantly higher than the provision set by the Joint Local
Development Plan, and therefore it is not believed that the proposal would meet
the acknowledged local need for housing. As a result, the development would
lead to an overprovision of open market housing the community, which is
contrary to the requirements of policy TAI 4 of the LDP and the settlement
strategy included in policy PS 17.
2.
No sufficient reason has been provided
within the application as to why an affordable unit cannot be provided on the
site, and therefore the application is contrary to the requirements of Policy
TAI 15 of the LDP.
3.
Due
to the narrowness of the access route to the site and the detrimental impact on
the flow and convenience of private and service transportation which will use
it, it is likely that the development will have negative impacts on the
amenities of local residents and users of Lôn yr Eglwys, including those who
attend Ysgol Morfa Nefyn; therefore, the proposal is contrary to the
requirements of policy PCYFF 2 of the LDP with regard to protecting the
amenities of land users near development sites.
On the basis of the information submitted in the Linguistic Statement, the LPA is not convinced that the development would not have a negative impact on the Welsh language, contrary to the requirements of policy PS1
Minutes:
Residential development of six dwellings, access and
associated works
Attention was drawn to the late observations form.
a)
The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application,
noting that this was a full application for a residential development to
include six detached dwellings, access road and associated works on the site of
the former Catholic Church at Morfa Nefyn,that has by now been
demolished.
It was
highlighted that an appeal had been submitted in relation to the
application due to the failure to determine the application within the target
of 8 weeks. It was added that late information had
been received from the agent regarding a public footpath and a revised language
statement.
It was
explained that policy TAI 4 noted the need for any housing proposals
within coastal/rural villages to be of a scale, type and design that was in
keeping with the character of the settlement.
A comparatively lower level of development was
promoted for these Villages in order to protect their character and
support the community need for housing or affordable housing for local need. In
recognising that an offer of financial contribution had been
made towards the provision of local affordable housing, the development
would comprise six substantially sized open market houses that would add to the
over-provision of housing in the settlement since the adoption of the LDP.
In the context of affordable
housing, as two or more units were offered as part of
the proposed development, Policy TAI 15 notes that at least 10% of the units
are expected to be affordable. It is also noted in the policy, where the affordable housing
requirement of a particular scheme falls below a single dwelling on the site,
as in this case, then providing an affordable unit within that development will
remain the priority. None of the units
proposed as part of the application are affordable and it was
highlighted that the applicant had offered a financial contribution
equivalent to 0.6 unit towards the provision of local affordable housing. It is not clear why at least one affordable
house could not be included as part of the plan and therefore it was considered that the plan did not meet the requirements
of policy TAI 15.
In the context of language
matters, it was highlighted that a Welsh Language Statement had been submitted
with the planning application and reported that on the whole
the impact of the development on the Welsh Language in the local community
would be neutral and the affordable contribution would assist towards the
provision for local people. However, it was noted that
the Language Unit (in the late observations form) had noted, in their opinion
that insufficient information had been submitted in the application's documents
to support the opinion of a neutral impact.
A recommendation had been made for the
applicant to reconsider the information and resubmit the statement prior to
submission to the Planning Committee. Although additional information had been
received (29/01/21) it did not respond to all the
concerns of the Language Unit and therefore the officers were not convinced in
terms of language matters.
In the context of the access
road it was reported that the road was very narrow, the width of one vehicle,
and due to its nature, it would not be adopted as a public road by the County
Council and the estate road continued to be private. It was suggested that there would be a likely,
significant and consistent increase in the use of the access road on the
junction with Lôn yr Eglwys and close to Ysgol Gynradd Morfa Nefyn (which itself generated traffic that caused
current inconvenience to local residents).
In light of matters such as the need to collect litter from the entrance
to the access road, it was considered that there was a likelihood that there
would be intervention in terms of the impact on the convenience of access,
parking problems and traffic flow difficulties that would be unacceptable to
nearby residents. In addition, despite
the efforts submitted in the plans to provide a safe and tidy bin store area,
due to the nature of such a facility, in such a restricted spot, it was considered that it was inevitable that those
arrangements would add to litter and untidiness problems near the access.
Although there
were some positive features in the plan submitted, approval of the application could not be recommended due to the failure to satisfy the
requirements of the LDP's housing policies, the impact on the amenities of
residents in terms of the proposal as well as language concerns.
b)
Taking advantage of the right to
speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following points:
·
It was disappointing that the
concerns noted in the report had not been mentioned or discussed with the
applicant before the application was reported to
Committee - all the information had been submitted to the Council since
October.
·
Policy TAI 4 stated that proposals
for open market housing in villages such as Morfa Nefyn would be granted provided the size, scale, type and design of the development was in keeping with the
character of the village and that the site wass
located within the development boundary. The report noted that the development
of 6 houses was a 'large windfall' site as noted in
Policy PS 16. However, policy PS 16 did
not refer at all to 'large windfall sites' and did not define them.
·
The report noted that the proposal would not make any contribution to meet with the community need for
housing. Despite this, the housing mix assessment contradicted this.The report noted that the population in Gwynedd was expected to grow over the next five years with an
increase in the number of children in the long term. This suggested that there
would be a need for larger houses, as offered as part of the proposal to
satisfy the housing needs of families.
·
From the construction patterns in Morfa Nefyn (period between 2011
and 2020), no 4+ bedroom units were built. This meant that the percentage of 2 and 3 bedroom houses were higher than the 40% and 30%
highlighted within the Gwynedd Local Housing Market Assessment.
·
The mix of proposed housing helped to address the
needs of the community for larger houses and to expand the range of housing
available in the county in accordance with policy TAI 8.
·
No request had been received from
the Council questioning the intention to provide a financial contribution and
officers in the policy unit confirmed that the units are larger
in size than what was considered suitable as an 'affordable house'.
·
That a a
statement that the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the flow of
traffic and the amenities of local residents was contrary to the observations
of the Highways Officer who was of the opinion that the increase in traffic
would not be significant, and would not lead to congestion on the road.
c)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the
following points:
·
The prices of the houses were out of the reach of
local people
·
Although anticipating a recommendation to refuse, the
application had been called in in case it might slip between complex policies
·
There were too many holiday homes and open market
houses in Morfa Nefyn -
only affordable houses were needed
·
The development would be harmful to the Welsh language
·
The houses would affect the privacy
of nearby houses
·
That the access was too narrow (9.5') and only allowed
one vehicle at a time. There was no space to widen the access and it was not
suitable as it was for a fire engine or waste vehicle
·
The development added to traffic problems in front of
the Primary School
·
The development would cross a public footpath - that
the Council had an open application regarding having better use of the pubic
footpath
ch) It
was proposed and seconded to refuse the application
d)
During the ensuing discussion, the
following observations were made by members:
·
The reasons for refusing the
application were clear in the report.
·
The village had suffered as a result of the impact of
incomers
·
There were too many houses in Morfa
Nefyn
·
Open market housing would destroy
the village from the point of view of the language
·
That the use of the 'private road'
was likely to cause problems
·
'Affordable'? Who decides? The
prices of the open market houses would be out of reach of local peoples' wages
·
Need to protect our cultural values.
dd) In response to a question regarding the instructions to
complete the language assessment the Planning Manager noted that a template in
the Local Development Plan set out the guidelines to complete the language
assessment and the template had been available since the Plan had been adopted.
It was added that Planning Unit Officers had no
control over the contents of the language assessment and it was only Officers
from the Language Unit who offered observations.
In
response, it was suggested that there was a need for
more detailed guidelines and information regarding the requirements shared with
applicants. It was proposed that Officers would
contact the Member directly to discuss the procedure.
RESOLVED:
To refuse the application
Reasons:
1. The
housing provision in Morfa Nefyn
is already significantly higher than the provision set by the Joint Local Development
Plan, and therefore it is not believed that the
proposal would meet the recognised local need for housing. As a result, the
development would lead to an over-provision of open market housing in the
community, which is contrary to the requirements of policy TAI 4 of the LDP and
the settlement strategy included in policy PS 17.
2. No
sufficient reason has been provided within the
application as to why an affordable unit cannot be provided on the site, and
therefore the application is contrary to the requirements of policy TAI 15 of
the LDP.
3. Due to the narrowness of the access
route to the site and the detrimental impact on the flow and convenience of
private and service transport which will use it, it is likely that the
development will have negative impacts on the amenities of local residents and
users of Lôn yr Eglwys, including those who attend Ysgol
Morfa Nefyn; therefore, the
proposal is contrary to the requirements of policy PCYFF 2 of the LDP with
regard to protecting the amenities of land users near development sites.
4. On
the basis of the information submitted in the Language Statement, the LPA is
not convinced that the development would not have a negative impact on the
Welsh language, contrary to the requirements of policy PS1
Supporting documents:
- St Mary's Church, Lôn yr Eglwys, Morfa Nefyn, Pwllheli, Gwynedd, item 6. PDF 277 KB
- Plans, item 6. PDF 5 MB