Agenda item

Residential development for 9 affordable dwellings and new accesses

 

LOCAL MEMBER Councillor Elfed Wyn Williams

 

Link to relevant background documents

Residential development for nine affordable dwellings and new accesses

 

          The Members had visited the site.

 

(a)     The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application and noted that it was a full application to erect nine affordable houses on a sloping green-field site abutting the development boundary of Deiniolen. The development would have six two-bedroom units and two three-bedroom units and a five-bedroom bungalow designed to meet the needs of a specific local family.

 

         The intention to provide nine affordable houses on the site (100%) was noted, and it was mentioned that the Council's Strategic Housing Unit had confirmed that this number of houses along with the type of house addressed the needs in the area. It was added that a Registered Social Landlord would provide the houses and the current housing needs register (October 2018) showed a need in the community for two-bedroom and three-bedroom houses, and there were 33 applicants on the waiting list for these types of units.

 

         Reference was made to Policy TAI 6 (Exception Sites), which noted that development directly abutting development boundaries must be 100% affordable. It was also noted in the Policy that it was a requirement to show that affordable housing cannot be supplied within a reasonable time-scale on an open market site within the development boundary where there is demand for affordable houses. It was highlighted that no affordable housing units had been constructed in Deiniolen between 2011 and 2018 and although two sites had been approved where an element of affordable housing had been included, the construction work had not commenced on any of the proposals thus far. Reference was made to an explanation from the agent, noted under paragraph 5.6 in the report, explaining the reason that they were unable to provide the housing.

 

         Reference was made to an observation by objectors that the affordability of the existing houses available within the development boundary must be considered before determining the application before the Committee. However, in considering that the houses within the boundary were open market houses, they would not meet the same needs as the houses proposed here, namely social rent houses that had been designed to meet Design Quality Requirements (DQR). Since this plan abutted a development boundary, it was considered that the development addressed local need for social rental housing, as confirmed by the Council's Strategic Housing Unit. It was believed that the principle of the plan met the requirements of Policy TAI 8 and TAI 16 of the Local Development Plan and would contribute toward the target set in Policy PS 18.

 

         It was emphasised that other aspects of the proposal were acceptable and, although there had been some confusion amongst the local community regarding the traffic collision assessment, it was highlighted that an internal assessment had been carried out, rather than an assessment for the purposes of this application. It was added that the Transportation Unit has no objection to the proposal.

 

         In the context of drainage matters, a response was received from the Land Drainage Unit/Gwynedd Consultancy, enquiring about some elements of the Drainage Strategy before they can provide a firm opinion on the plan. It was noted that these discussions were ongoing and that the Land Drainage Unit/Gwynedd Consultancy had confirmed that they were confident that a potential solution was available on the site.

 

(b)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted the following main points:

·         That he accepted the need for housing, but that the site was unsuitable

·         That the roads leading to the site were unsuitable and insufficient - poor condition and very narrow

·         That there was no response to a traffic collision assessment in the report, therefore the process had not been transparent

·         That a previous application from a private applicant had been refused, therefore why was a Registered Social Landlord receiving permission?

·         The underground tanks were unreliable - needed a full assessment of the capacity due to flood risks. The water system was insufficient for the existing infrastructure

 

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

·         That the development on an exception site offered 100% affordable housing

·         In response to transportation concerns, long-term improvements would be made to the road, with the creation of a new footpath

·         That each property would have two parking spaces - this met the statutory requirements

·         That the development had a good mixture of housing

·         It would enable tenants to move so that they were not penalised with empty bedroom taxes

 

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

·         That a similar application had been refused for a housing development due to the condition of the road. Therefore, why was there a recommendation to approve here. Accepted amendments, but the road was still narrow

·         An application for nine houses - there would clearly be further applications in future, therefore there was a need to improve transportation issues. That the number was low in order to offer the development in two phases

·         Why was the site not included within the development boundary when the Local Development Plan was adopted in 2017?

·         Two other sites were designated (the total of live housing approvals was 53) - this would increase to 62, which would be too much for the village

·         A previous application was refused in Clwt y Bont for 12 houses as it was outside the boundary - no justification or consistency

·         The general statement was 'need housing locally' - there was no confirmation that the people of Deiniolen and Clwt y Bont would receive the houses - needed information that would confirm the need

·         Houses were already for sale at an affordable price in the village

·         No evidence that the applicant had discussed with the other two sites - no excuse that development was required outside the boundary

·         That the layout of the houses were out of character - some were overlooking

·         That there were land drainage problems

·         Disappointed with the application and therefore refused

 

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

 

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

·         That this was a good opportunity for local people, and it had been submitted in response to the need for social housing

·         Although it was outside the development boundary, the development satisfied the need

·         A new exit would be created to mitigate infrastructure concerns

·         The site was unsuitable

·         Deiniolen had been the subject of a number of housing applications; live applications had not been developed

·         That overlooking matters needed to be considered further

 

         RESOLVED to delegate powers to the Senior Planning Manager to approve the application, subject to confirmation from the Land Drainage Unit that the arrangements for land drainage are acceptable, and also to ensure that there is no unacceptable overlooking between Plot 1 and the nearby Tan y Caerau:

 

1.         The commencement time of the development

2.         Development in strict accordance with the plans

3.         Slate roofs

4.         Welsh Water Condition

5.         The landscaping plan must be implemented and trees must be protected in the long term

6.         The houses must be affordable in perpetuity

7.         Withdrawal of permitted development rights

8.         Drainage conditions as required