Issue - meetings

Resubmission of a previously refused application to remove a section 106 agreement in connection with planning permission C10D/0017/33/LL relating to the erection of an affordable dwelling on part of a field near Penboncyn, Boduan, Pwllheli. 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Anwen J Davies

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To Refuse

Reason:

It is considered that the Section 106 Agreement that restricts the property to an affordable house for local need continues to have a relevant purpose for planning need, and therefore, that it continues to be in compliance with the guidance as part of 'Planning Obligations' Community Infrastructure Levy 2010 and Circular 13/97, Planning Policy Wales, Chapter 3 "Making and Enforcing Planning Decisions" and the Town and Country Planning (Modification and Discharge of Planning Obligations) Act 1992. The removal of the agreement as noted in the application, would also undermine the Council's strategy in relation to safeguarding an acceptable number of affordable houses within the county, contrary to the relevant requirements of Policy TAI 15 of the Joint Anglesey and Gwynedd Local Development Plan together with relevant guidelines in the relevant Planning Guidance: Affordable Housing, Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Obligations and Technical Advice Note 2:  Planning and Affordable Housing.  

Re-submission of an application previously refused to revoke a 106 agreement relating to the erection of an affordable house permitted under reference C10D/0017/33/LL on part of a field near Penboncyn, Boduan, Pwllheli.

a)     The Planning Manager highlighted that it was an application to revoke a 106 agreement attached to planning permission in 2010 which ensured that the property would be an affordable unit with a discount of at least 40%. The application had been submitted as the current owners did not consider the house to be an affordable house, even at a discounted rate due to its financial value. It was noted that the property had not been constructed, but that work in connection with the planning permission, including the entrance, had commenced and therefore the planning permission was extant. The property, if built in accordance with the permitted plans, would be a single-story detached house with 4 bedrooms and a living room located within the Boduan rural area which was well outside any current development boundary, and therefore in open countryside.

From a planning history perspective, the original applicant's application (not the current applicants) had been assessed and the need for affordable housing was proven. However, the size of the property was significantly larger than usual for a 4-bedroom affordable house and therefore, the recommendation made by officers then was to refuse the application. The application was discussed at the planning committee at the time and members had resolved to go contrary to the recommendation and approve the application subject to the completion of a 106 agreement. It was reiterated that Boduan was no longer defined as a rural village and therefore, the site was in the open countryside in terms of the relevant planning consideration.

It was noted that a previous application for the revocation of the 106 had been refused under delegated rights and the application had been submitted to the planning committee for a decision at the local member's request. 

Reference was made to the procedure for assessing the revocation of 106 agreements, the specific criteria and that the agreement remained relevant – the agreement for ensuring that the unit was affordable in perpetuity. The site was originally in a location directly near a building coloured on the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan proposals map, which defined Boduan as a Rural Village and, therefore, without complying with an affordable housing policy at the time it would not have been granted planning permission in the first place. It was reiterated that the need for affordable units in the area of Boduan continued and surrounding areas which had been evidenced by the comments of the Housing Strategic Unit. There was no other means of ensuring that the unit was affordable and therefore the agreement was considered to remain relevant.

It was highlighted that information submitted as part of the application referred to valuation, but had not been included, and that the applicants considered that the price was too high to be affordable and therefore available to those  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8