Application for the erection of one affordable dwelling with associated access, parking and landscaping
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Judith Humphreys
Additional documents:
Decision:
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?
Minutes:
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