Issue - meetings

Application for the erection of one affordable dwelling with associated access, parking and landscaping

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Judith Humphreys

Link to relevant background documents

To defer the decision in order to hold further discussions with the applicant to find out

·         What was the current 'need'?

·         Had he considered erecting another affordable dwelling on the site to get more value from the plot?

·         Was he willing to consider a local need 106 agreement – affordable home on the property?

a)         The Senior Development Control Officer elaborated on the application's background noting that the site was located within an agricultural field on the outskirts of the village of Penygroes along a narrow road that turned into a public footpath. It was highlighted that the application was a resubmission of that refused under reference C20/0853/22/LL and had been submitted to the planning committee at the request of the Local Member.

It was explained that Policy TAI 16 'Exception Sites' stated that provided it be shown that there was a proven local need for affordable housing which could not be delivered within a reasonable time-scale on a market site within the development boundary, as an exception, proposals for 100% affordable housing plans on sites immediately adjacent to development boundaries that formed a logical extension to the settlement would be granted.

It was reported that information had not been submitted with the application noting that the application site touched the development boundary - it appeared that there was a gap between the site and the development boundary (which appeared to be a public footpath). In planning policy terms the site was defined as a location in open countryside and, therefore, was not relevant to be considered in terms of Policy TAI 16, 'Exception Sites' - this was supported in the Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Affordable Housing'.

It was noted that the proposal was being proposed as an affordable dwelling. Although Tai Teg had confirmed that the applicant was eligible to purchase an affordable dwelling or self-build an affordable dwelling, no further information regarding the applicant's particular need for an affordable dwelling had been submitted as part of the application. It was highlighted that the internal floor area of the 2 bedroom, single-storey dwelling was approximately 110m square which was 50m greater than the maximum specified in the Supplementary Planning Guidance for an affordable 2 bedroom, single-storey dwelling. It was also noted that the height of the main roof-space meant there was potential to provide an additional floor above part of the dwelling in future. It was considered that the application site (which contained the proposed house and its curtilage) was very large, and that providing a curtilage of this size would be likely to increase the value of the property ultimately, which would render the house unaffordable in terms of price. On this basis, the proposal was considered to be contrary to the requirements of policy TAI 15 of the LDP and the SPG Affordable Housing in respect of the floor area shown.

It was explained that policy PCYFF 2 provided development criteria, and stated that proposals must demonstrate compliance with all relevant policies of the LDP and national planning policies and guidance in the first place. It was reiterated that the policy listed a series of criteria that related to making the best use of land, incorporating amenity space, including provision for storing, recycling and managing waste, and including provision for effectively treating and eradicating invasive species. A site of this size would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6