skip to main content

Agenda item

Renewal of planning permission reference C08A/0568/24/LL and C09A/0532/24/LL for the erection of 24 dwellings including 12 affordable dwellings, alteration to present access and creation of estate roads (amended scheme to that originally submitted)

 

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Aeron Maldwyn Jones

 

Link to relevant background documents

 

Minutes:

Renewal of planning application number C08A/0568/24/LL and C09A/0532/24/LL for the erection of 24 dwellings, to include 12 affordable houses, alterations to the existing entrance and the creation of estate roads (amended plan to the plan originally submitted).

 

(a)      The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that the application was deferred at the Committee meeting held on 17 December 2018, to enable an objector to speak on the application and to undertake a site visit. Some members had visited the site prior to the meeting.

 

It was explained that the original application had been approved by the Committee at a meeting on 14 December 2015. It was noted that as the applicant had delayed signing a legal agreement, the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (JLDP) had been adopted in July 2017 and as a result there had been a change in the policy situation. The application had been assessed in accordance with current policies.

 

It was noted that the application was for 24 dwellings and 12 of these would be affordable dwellings. It was highlighted that the need for open market housing and affordable housing had been confirmed by the relevant bodies, and the policies supported this, therefore the application was considered to be acceptable in principle.

 

Attention was drawn to the objections received from nearby residents on the grounds of issues such as loss of privacy, noise nuisance and oppressive structures. It was explained that there was a varied distance of 23-31m between the rear of the existing houses and the rear of the proposed houses and it was deemed that this empty space, as well as existing vegetation and the design/location of the proposed houses, was acceptable on the grounds of protecting reasonable privacy and overlooking.

 

Reference was made to the objections received from local residents regarding the increase in traffic and the lack of footpaths, although these were recognised, the Transportation Unit had no objection to the proposed arrangement subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions. It was also noted that the proposal was acceptable on the grounds of preparing facilities for parking, travelling and allowing access to the houses themselves, and was accessible based on its location.

 

It was noted that the Joint Planning Policy Unit had confirmed that the size of the open space for the development conformed to the requirements of Policy ISA5 of the JLDP and the requirements of the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Housing Developments and Open Spaces of Recreational Value. Although objections had been received from nearby residents to the location of the open space, it was considered that the location was acceptable bearing in mind that there was natural supervision of the space with a large number of houses within the development and no alternative use could be made of this section of the site, considering the building limitations due to its proximity to the gas sub-station and proposed sewage treatment works. It was expanded that if the open space was relocated then the existing location of the open space could not be developed for housing, this would entail a reduction in the number of houses on the site, and could mean that the development would not be viable.

 

The development was acceptable in terms of relevant local and national policies for the reasons noted in the report.

 

(b)     Exercising his right to speak, an objector noted the following main points:-

·         That he represented the residents of the three dwellings that faced the site;

·         Overlooking into the gardens of existing houses would stem from the layout of the houses;

·         The windows of the houses would face the existing dwellings and would have a detrimental impact on amenities;

·         Access to the existing dwellings was via a narrow, private road and there was no car turning area;

·         Major concerns about the development, however, they could be resolved through collaboration;

·         There would be an increase in the flow of traffic to the access.

 

(c)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main points:-

·         The application had been altered to comply with the JLDP's policies;

·         That Cartrefi Cymunedol Gwynedd would develop the site subject to having a planning permission in place; 

·         The proposal included 12 affordable houses as part of the site was outside the boundary, the previous application was for six affordable houses;

·         That the types of units met with the need for 2-3 bedroom houses;

·         There was a clear need in the area for affordable housing, it was not possible to satisfy this need within the development boundary only;

·         Objections had been received regarding the location of the open space, it was proposed to install a fence to prevent climbing together with a hedge surrounding the open space to ensure safety and provide a measure to protect biodiversity;

·         Although recognising the objections of local residents in terms of the increase in traffic and that only a pavement on one side of the road was provided, the Transportation Unit was satisfied with the proposal.

 

(ch)   The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) made the following main points:-

·         That local people objected to the proposal in its current form, with the need to look at the number of houses and the location of the open space;

·         That the Design and Access Statement looked like a copy of another statement;

·         That the open space was located near the railway, although the agent noted that a fence to prevent climbing would be installed, children would find a way of going over or around the fence;

·         It was asked if the layout of the site could be looked at again to get an open space near the existing houses, as originally approved. Together with looking at the location of the disabled bungalow, as it was far from the main road;

·         That the Transportation Unit required a pavement either side of the road to the highway as part of the original permission. A pavement on one side of the road was now acceptable by the Transportation Unit, although there would be an increase in traffic; 

·         That he supported having houses on the site but not in its current form;

·         That the objections had been discussed with an officer from Cartrefi Cymunedol Gwynedd, however, he did not agree;

·         That the proposal meant that the access road would cut into a private road in order to include an additional two houses;

·         The open space was for the whole village; 

·         That it was possible to change the layout of the site to correspond to the wishes of the local community and ensure the safety of children which was vitally important; 

·         To request that the Committee object the application due to the location of the open space and the location of the disabled bungalow.

 

(d)     It was proposed and seconded to approve the application.

 

          During the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:

 

·         Asking for an explanation why it was not possible to build on the land near the gas sub-station;

·         If it was not safe to build on the land near the gas sub-station, how could the open space be located there? There were also safety issues on this section of the site as it was near the railway;

·         That many sites developed for housing were close to railways. It was not a substantial safety issue as the risks could be mitigated in terms of trespassing on the railway;

·         If the open space is relocated, this would mean the loss of land that can be built upon reducing the number of houses, with a risk of losing the development as it could be non-viable. 

·         In evaluating children's safety and more housing, that it was necessary to give priority to the safety of children. The open space should be moved to a safe location in accordance with the wishes of the community and the local member;

·         That the element of affordable housing was to be welcomed and the development would help to safeguard schools and the Welsh language;

·         That the site was ideal to satisfy the need for housing, however, there was too much risk with the current layout of the site. It was necessary to consider a reduction in the number of houses and the risk to life;

·         Concern regarding the access, if the application was approved, the maximum speed limit on the highway should be reduced from 60mph to 30mph.

 

(dd)   In response to the above observations, the officers noted:

·         That the applicant had received information from the Building Control Unit regarding building restrictions on the land near the gas sub-station;

·         That there were two fences surrounding the gas sub-station and it was a secured structure. There were fences similar to those proposed by the applicant, near Network Rail assets; 

·         That the open space was more than what was required, therefore there was an option to get a buffer and a fence in addition to the fence proposed by the applicant; 

·         The site was currently an open field, there was nothing to stop children from playing on the land near the railway. 

 

(e)     An amendment was proposed that two fences were installed between the open space and the site's boundary. A vote was taken on the amendment, and the amendment fell.

 

          During the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:

 

·         Having lived close to a busy railway for 17 years, there had been no incident in terms of safety during that period. The risk in terms of trespassing on the railway could be mitigated, an opportunity had been lost by not supporting the amendment; 

·         An additional risk of children playing around e.g. throwing objects at the trains;

·         That the proposal was an over-development of the site. Not against the principle of developing the site for housing, however, there were concerns regarding safety in the context of the gas sub-station and the railway. 

 

(f)      In response to the above observations, the officers noted:

·         The situation in terms of safety was a matter of evidence, with a need to evaluate the risk. The alterations mentioned by some members to the layout of the site were substantial amendments that would likely mean refusing the application, reasons would be required if it was proposed to refuse the application. It should be ensured that there was evidence in terms of the risk attached to the location of the open space as this could impact on the principle of the development;

·         There was a previous permission to develop housing on the application site and it was difficult to see any reason for refusal without there being a risk for the Council in terms of an appeal;

·         No response had been received from the Welsh Highland Railway and it was likely that they had no objection to the proposal;

·         If the applicant proposed to change the layout of the site then the layout would have been amended following the discussions; 

·         The number of houses per hectare met with the required standard, with extensive gardens and a parking area for the houses. There was concern if the application was refused on the grounds of an over-development.

 

(g)     The members voted on the proposal to approve the application, the proposal fell.

 

It was proposed to refuse the application as the layout of the site was unsuitable with the open space in the incorrect location due to its proximity to the gas sub-station and the railway. 

 

The Planning Manager reminded the members that if there was an appeal then the proposer and the seconder would present the case in an appeal.

 

In response to the comment, the proposer noted that all the evidence in the context of the gas sub-station had not been submitted to the Committee. 

 

The proposal was seconded.

 

The Planning Manager noted that due to the risk to the Council in terms of an appeal, that consideration should be given to defer the application in order to conduct further discussions with Cartrefi Cymunedol Gwynedd. She expanded that despite there being a risk of appeal due to the lack of decision and a risk of no housing development on the site due to the failure to secure a grant, it would be wise for the Committee to defer the application in order to conduct further discussions.

 

It was proposed to defer the application in order to conduct further discussions. The proposer withdrew his proposal to refuse the application and seconded the proposal to defer.

 

RESOLVED to defer the application.

Supporting documents: