Agenda item

Demolition of public house and erection of six houses and associated works

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Dylan Bullard

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION:  To delegate powers to the Senior Planning Manager to refuse the application.

 

Reasons

 

1.    Considering the scale, design and number of proposed dwellings, it is not considered that the development would be in keeping or of an acceptable appearance within the local area. In addition, considering the narrow nature of the site, the number of units included in the plan and the lack of amenity space associated with the individual houses, it is believed that it would be an over-development of the site and harmful to residential amenities. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the relevant requirements of policies PCYFF 2 and PCYFF 3 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan.

 

2.    On the grounds of a lack of appropriate housing mix, a lack of justification outlining how the proposal would meet the needs to the local community or any provision of affordable housing as a part of the application, the Local Planning Authority does not consider that the proposal is acceptable. Consequently, it is believed that the proposal is unable to meet the requirements of policies TAI 1, TAI 8 and TAI 15 within the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan, along with the relevant advice given within the Affordable Housing and Housing Mix SPG.

 

3.    Although the document noted as a Community and Linguistic Statement was submitted as part of the application, it does not include sufficient information and as a result, it is not believed that sufficient information is available to assess whether the proposal is in accordance with criterion 1c of Policy PS1, which requests a Welsh language statement that would show how the proposed developments protects, promotes and strengthens the Welsh language. On the basis, the Local Planning Authority has not been convinced that the proposal would not affect the Welsh language in the plan area

 

4.    It is not believed that sufficient information has been submitted which justifies the loss of facility on the grounds of the relevant requirements of policy ISA 2 as well as the advice given in Supplementary Planning Guidance: Change of use of community facilities and services, employment sites and retail units; which states that evidence would be needed that an attempt has been made to suitably market the property.

 

5.    The site lies within an area that is at risk of surface water flooding and as no Flood Consequence Assessment was submitted that would have considered the safe development of the site and show that the proposed development would not divert surface water towards other properties, it is not believed that the proposal is acceptable based on flood risk and that it is, consequently, contrary to criterion 8 of policy PS 5, criterion 4 of policy PS 6 as well as the instruction given in paragraph 11.1 of Technical Advice Note 15.

 

6.    No preliminary survey for protected species within the site and buildings was submitted and no biodiversity improvements are included as part of the proposal. Consequently, it is not possible to ensure protection and improvements to local biodiversity and as a result, it is not believed that the proposal is unacceptable in terms of the requirements of the criteria of policy AMG 5, along with the advice given within TAN 5.

 

a)    The Planning Manager highlighted that this was a full application to demolish a two-storey public house and replace it with a row of six 2 or 3 bedroom houses. The houses would be three-storey and include the following:

 

·         Ground floor: hallway, toilet, utility room, garage/workshop, bedroom/office

·         First floor: living room, kitchen, bathroom

·         Second floor: two bedrooms (one en-suite)

 

It was reported that the site was located within the development boundary of Pwllheli town, within a predominantly residential area with a few commercial uses nearby; in a prominent position near one of the main transport routes leading into and out of the town. The property and its use as a public house was currently empty.

 

It was highlighted that the proposal was unacceptable for several reasons relating to 

·         Loss of the public house

·         Lack of justification for the houses

·         Lack of justification for the housing mix

·         Lack of provision of affordable housing

 

Concerns were noted about the design, scale and density of the development along with the lack of amenity space - the application was considered an over-development of the site and it would have a detrimental impact on the area.

 

It was highlighted that the assessment drew attention to a lack of information on several matters, such as biodiversity, flooding and drainage and language matters, and therefore it was not possible to assess the proposal in full. It was recommended to refuse the application for these reasons. It was reiterated, due to the fundamental objections, that the officers had not gone back to the agent to ask for the necessary information that did not form part of the application. It was noted that no request had been received for pre-application advice.

 

b)    It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application.

 

c)     During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by members:

·         A historic public house that had changed hands many times

·         The impact of COVID-19 was likely to cause increasing pressure on development - there was therefore a need to secure the affordable element

·         There was a need to encourage applicants to seek pre-application advice - a booklet was suggested outlining the information that was required when submitting an application

·         The website needed to be better at highlighting language statements

           

RESOLVED:

 

            To delegate powers to the Senior Planning Manager to refuse the application.

 

            Reasons

 

1.    Given the scale, design and number of proposed dwellings, it is not considered that the development would be in keeping or of an acceptable appearance within the local area. In addition, given the narrow nature of the site, the number of units included in the plan and the lack of amenity space associated with the individual houses, it is believed that it would be an over-development of the site and harmful to residential amenities. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the relevant requirements of policies PCYFF 2 and PCYFF 3 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan.

 

2.    On the grounds of a lack of appropriate housing mix, lack of justification outlining how the proposal would meet the needs of the local community or any provision of affordable housing as part of the application, the Local Planning Authority does not consider that the proposal is acceptable. Consequently, it is believed that the proposal is unable to meet the requirements of policies TAI 1, TAI 8 and TAI 15 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan, along with the relevant advice given within the Affordable Housing and Housing Mix SPG.

 

3.    Although a document identified as a Community and Linguistic Statement was submitted as part of the application, it does not include sufficient information and as a result, it is not believed that sufficient information is available to assess whether the proposal is in accordance with criterion 1c of Policy PS1, which requests a Welsh Language Statement that would show how the proposed developments protect, promote and strengthen the Welsh language. On this basis, the Local Planning Authority has not been convinced that the proposal would not affect the Welsh language in the plan area.

 

4.    It is not believed that sufficient information has been submitted which justifies the loss of the facility on the grounds of the relevant requirements of policy ISA 2 as well as the advice given in Supplementary Planning Guidance: Change of use of community facilities and services, employment sites and retail units; which states that evidence would be needed that an attempt has been made to suitably market the property.

 

5.    The site lies within an area that is at risk of surface water flooding and as no Flood Consequence Assessment was submitted that would have considered the safe development of the site and demonstrated that the proposed development would not divert surface water towards other properties, it is not believed that the proposal is acceptable based on flood risk and that it is, consequently, contrary to criterion 8 of policy PS 5, criterion 4 of policy PS 6 as well as the instruction given in paragraph 11.1 of Technical Advice Note 15.

 

6.    No preliminary survey for protected species within the site and buildings was submitted and no biodiversity improvements are included as part of the proposal. Consequently, it is not possible to ensure protection and improvements to local biodiversity and as a result, it is believed that the proposal is unacceptable in terms of the requirements of the criteria of policy AMG 5, along with the advice given within TAN 5.