Erection of 9 two storey dwellings (including an affordable dwelling), new access, parking and turning area.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Charles Wyn Jones
Minutes:
Erection of 9 two-storey
dwellings (including an affordable dwelling), new access, parking spaces and
turning area.
(a) The Senior Development
Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application, noting that
the application site was within the Llanrug local
service centre development boundary and had been specifically allocated for
housing development. It was noted that the proposal was acceptable in
principle.
It was explained that the
site was level in nature and very visible from the nearby class I county
highway (Llanberis Road). It was noted that the
layout of the houses within the site meant that quite a substantial part of the
site would be an amenity/green area and given the form, size, density,
appearance and design of the proposed houses, it is considered that the
proposal would not create an alien or oppressive development which would have a
substantial or significant impact on the visual amenities of this part of the
streetscape.
It was highlighted that
the proposal involved creating a standard access off the nearby class I county
highway along with extending the existing footpath into the site itself. The
design and plan of the estate road, as well as parking spaces, was amended in
order to comply with the requirements of the Transportation Unit. It was noted
that siting a new access on this part of the highway was also acceptable based
on the requirements of road safety on the grounds of visibility and the number
of houses that would be served by the access.
It was noted that third
parties had recommended that this current proposal should include a roundabout,
connecting footpath/road and parking spaces in the same way as the previous
application approved in December 2012. However, consideration must be given to
the fact that these elements from the previous application had been included in
the application itself at the applicant's wish at that time (Bangor Diocese),
and they were not necessary or a statutory requirement in order to ensure road
safety or to make the proposal acceptable in relation to planning matters.
The development was
acceptable in terms of relevant local and national policies for the reasons
noted in the report.
(b) The Local Member
(not a Member of this Planning Committee) objected to the application and made
the following main points:-
·
That the land in question had been transferred over
a 100 years ago to the church to build a church, however, this was not
undertaken and the land was retained for community use;
·
The site was opposite the school and had double
yellow lines to prevent parking, together with buses stopping opposite the
school and another bus stop;
·
The site was in the centre of the village of Llanrug
and close to the village square, where there was a complex junction with five
roads meeting there;
·
Following discussions the
Transportation and Street Care Service proposed a possible scheme to improve
the situation in terms of road safety and a public meeting took place. The
Diocese confirmed that they would operate in accordance with what was agreed
including a connecting path between Station Road and Llanberis
Road as well as a roundabout to link the site with the connecting road;
·
That the Diocese had sold
the land for a reasonable price as there was a need to include parking spaces,
a connecting path and a roundabout;
·
The proposed plan would not assist the current
situation in terms of road safety and it did not include a footpath to the
shops on Station Road;
·
The member questioned why this application was for
nine houses rather than ten, as approved under the previous planning
permission;
·
Having considered the Joint Planning Policy Unit’s
observations, did this use make the best use of the site as it had been
earmarked for ten houses. It was asked why the observations of the Policy Unit
had not been included in the report;
·
An application for ten houses would entail a
commitment to provide a green space on the site;
·
There was no reference in the report to Policy TRA
1;
·
There was space in the garden of plot 7A to build
another house;
·
The community would not have agreed to include the
land in the JLDP without the roundabout;
·
They should act in accordance with Ffordd Gwynedd by placing the people of Gwynedd at the
centre of their actions.
(c) It
was proposed and seconded to refuse the application as the proposal was
contrary to criterion 3 Policy CYFF 2 and Policy TAI 8 in terms of an
appropriate mix of housing.
During the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were
noted by members:
·
Concerns regarding the parking provision and road
safety;
·
That the garden of plot 7A was huge, would an
application be submitted in future for another house;
·
That the Community Council objected to the
application;
·
There was only one affordable house, there should
be at least three affordable houses;
·
The Transportation and Street Care Service had
previously mentioned a scheme to improve the road safety situation and they now
noted that the situation was acceptable. Was there a covenant attached to the
land transfer in terms of providing the improvements? The application should be
refused and discussions should take place with the developer regarding the land
ownership transfer;
·
Rather than refuse the application, discussions
should take place with the applicant regarding the possibility of providing ten
houses on the site and to note the Committee's concerns;
·
Concern regarding the size of the houses that were
for families and the lack of a mixture in terms of type/size of housing;
·
The application before them was for nine houses, an
application for an additional house would be a separate application;
·
How much pressure had been placed on the developer
to make the best use of the land?
·
That the applicant proposed nine houses on the site
as ten houses would mean that the applicant would be required to conduct a
public consultation.
(ch)
In response to the above observations,
the officers noted that:
·
The applicant of the previous
application had agreed to the enhancements voluntarily and they were not
essential to make the proposal acceptable;
·
Regarding the concern of using the site
with the application for nine houses rather than ten, the applicant could be
asked to provide information to confirm the situation in terms of the intensity
of the development;
·
Consideration should be given to defer
the application to receive further information rather than to refuse as there
were possible risks to the Council in terms of appeal costs;
·
In terms of housing mix, the Housing Unit and the applicant could be asked to confirm the need for housing in
Llanrug;
·
Consideration should be given to a site inspection visit for Committee
members to see the location of the footpath requested by the Local Member. The applicant could be requested to voluntarily provide a footpath but he
could not be forced to do so;
·
That detailed work had been completed
when preparing the JLDP in terms of land viability, the target in terms of
affordable housing provision in a development in Gwynedd varied based on the
assessment. The target for Llanrug was 10% and
therefore a provision of one affordable house as part of the development was
acceptable;
·
That there were matters in the context
of sewerage that restricted the site's layout;
·
That the number of houses were less
than the threshold, where it was expected that the applicant would consult the
public on the proposal. A number of such
cases were a general concern to councils, however, it was not possible to do
anything to prevent them from happening.
(d) An amendment was proposed
and seconded to defer the application in order to receive further information
and to conduct a site inspection visit.
A member noted that the
Local Member should be part of the discussion with the applicant.
In response to a member’s
observation regarding imposing a condition in terms of the connecting path or a
play area as part of the development, the Planning Manager noted that extensive
discussions had taken place between the officers, the applicant and the Local
Member and that providing a footpath or play area was a matter of goodwill on
behalf of the applicant. She explained that it was not possible to enforce such
conditions as they were not in accordance with the policies.
A member noted that
bearing in mind that the previous application was for ten houses and the site
had been designated for ten houses in the JLDP, the application before them
should be for ten houses in order for local concerns to be noted as part of a
public consultation. The member added
that the plan before them was poor, did not provide a mix of housing and the
Joint Planning Policy Unit had noted in its observations, that could be seen on
the website under Track and Trace, that the plan was poor.
A member noted that she
understood that the layout of the site was a problem due to sewerage issues,
however, better use had been made of the site in the location plan of the
previous application, the layout should be re-considered.
A member expressed concern
in terms of road safety as the proposed entrance to the site was opposite the
school.
RESOLVED to defer the application in order to receive further information and conduct an inspection site visit.
Supporting documents: