Issue - meetings

Development of 21 residential units comprising of 6 one- bedroom flats, 12 two-bedroom flats and 3 three-bedroom houses, with associated landscaping and vehicular access.

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Menna Trenholme

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: TO REFUSE

Reasons:

1.    The proposal is contrary to the requirements of Policies PS 17, TAI 1 and TAI 8 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan (2017) as it is considered that the applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence with the application to convince the Local Planning Authority that there is a need for additional one- and two-bedroom flats in Bontnewydd considering that this proposal exceeds the indicative figure noted in the Plan and would create an imbalance in the type and mix of small units within the village, and no evidence has been received that the proposal would respond positively to the needs of the local community.

2.    Evidence was not received about the need for the number of dwellings and up-to-date information within the Welsh Language Assessment to be able to assess whether the proposal meets the requirements of criterion 1c of Policy PS1 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan which requires a Welsh Language statement to demonstrate how proposed developments would protect, promote and strengthen the Welsh Language.  On this basis, the Local Planning Authority is not convinced that the proposal would not have a negative impact on the Welsh language in the plan area.

3.    The site lies within an area at risk of surface water flooding, and because sufficient information was not submitted with the Flood Consequence Assessment including a Water Conservation Statement which would have considered the safe development of the site and demonstrated that the proposed development would not displace 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 7 of policy PCYFF 2, criterion 6 of policy PCYFF 3, criterion 4 of policy PS 6, policy PCYFF 6 together with the instruction provided in paragraph 11.1 of Technical Advice Note 15.

4.    Insufficient information has been submitted as part of the application for assessing the impact of the proposal on the Special Area of Conservation, protected species and wildlife on the site. No Green Infrastructure Statement was submitted either, therefore the proposal is contrary to the requirements of policies PS19 and AMG 5 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (2011-2026) which protect species and wildlife along with the requirements within Chapter 6, Edition 12 of Planning Policy Wales.

5.    The proposal is contrary to policy ISA 5 and the SPG for open spaces as there is no justification for the lack of provision of open spaces within the development while also taking account of the lack of evidence of the need for the number of dwellings and the high development density.

Development of 21 residential units comprising 6 one-bedroom apartments, 12 two-bedroom apartments and 3 three-bedroom dwellings along with associated landscaping and a new vehicular entrance. 

a)      The Development Control Officer highlighted that the site was located within the development boundary of Bontnewydd and was designated for 10 dwelling-units within the LDP.

In the context of the principle of the development, the developer's intention was to provide 21 new units. It was suggested that the provision of an additional 11 units was significantly higher than the 10 units set out in the development plan policies for this site in Bontnewydd. To this end, it was reported that justification was needed with the application outlining how the proposal for an additional 11 units would meet the needs of the local community.

In terms of assessing the element of affordable housing on the site, there had been considerable uncertainty by the developer during the application. Initially, he had intended to provide 100% of affordable housing, but the scheme was then changed to 50% affordable housing, and by today the plan was to provide 30% affordable housing which was 6 affordable units on the site. It was added that the applicant had not provided an open market valuation for the site nor for affordable units at an intermediate level. It was also noted that no valid information had been submitted to prove the need for one- and two-bedroom affordable (intermediate) flats within the village of Bontnewydd. Based on the lack of information, it had been very difficult for officers of the Council's Housing Unit to assess the true affordability of the residential units for the site.

Considering the discrepancies and the invalidity of the information submitted by the applicant, neither the Local Planning Authority nor the Housing Strategic Unit were convinced that the applicant had justified the provision of 11 additional residential units within the scheme or that the mix of 18 residential units as one- and two-bedroom flats were truly needed. As a result, the proposal was not considered to ⁠meet the needs of the local community in accordance with the LDP's housing policies.

In respect of visual amenities, it was reported that the area was mainly residential, and that the proposal in terms of its scale and setting was acceptable. Regarding design, it was noted that initial discussions had identified concern about movement / mobility within and across the site along with the site's accessibility for wheelchair users, because of varying levels across the site and the fact that no disabled parking spaces had been designated. The department had enquired about the treatment and cross-section levels of the northern boundary abutting the river, with the retaining wall extending along the northern boundary. It was recognised that there were concerns about the design and the lack of information regarding the levels and treatment of the northern boundary, and had other elements of the application been acceptable, further discussions or the imposing of conditions could have resolved these concerns. 

As part of the public  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8