Full application for the provision of 29 residential units with associated landscaping, parking, the creation of a new entrance and an area of public open space.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Peter Garlick
Minutes:
Full application to erect
29 residential units together with landscaping, car parking, create a new
access and open public area.
(a) The Planning Manager
elaborated on the background to the application and noted that the site was
located within the Bontnewydd development boundary
and had been specifically designated for housing. Some members had visited the
site before the meeting in order to see the site and its surroundings.
It was explained that
there was extant planning for 26 houses on the site. Attention was drawn to the
fact that the report had been prepared before the Supplementary Planning
Guidance relating to Affordable Housing had been adopted on 15 April 2019. It
was noted that the development was acceptable in principle as the site had been
designated specifically for residential development in the Local Development
Plan. It was noted that the most marked change from what had previously been
approved, was that the entrance had been relocated from the narrow road that
ran up the side of the site; consequently the setting of the houses had been
changed within the site. Nevertheless, similarities between the two plans
remained.
It was recognised that
there had been a change to what had previously been approved but that it was
necessary to consider how great the detrimental impact on local and adjacent
properties would be. Reference was made to plots 14 to 17 located on the
uppermost part of the site. It was noted that full assessments of plots 15 to
17 had concluded that they could be acceptable based on the impact on nearby
property, specifically in relation to location and distance from the boundary
with the existing nearby property. It was noted that a specific assessment had
been made as to whether unacceptable overlooking was likely to result from
locating the four houses on this part of the site. It was explained that focus
was placed on plot 14 because of the concern of looking into a private area of
the adjacent house. It was noted that the developer had changed the original
location of the house in question and had moved it forward so that it was 12.5
metres away from the boundary, and had also installed an unconventionally
shaped window in order to avoid overlooking, and had moved other windows.
Attention was drawn to
additional comments received that included the response of the owner of the
adjacent property (Tywyn) to the amendments.
It was noted that the
officers believed the amendments made the situation acceptable and that there
would not be any unacceptable overlooking, and any overlooking would be across
the lower part of the garden and, therefore, not over any private areas.
It was highlighted that
the nearby property-owner had expressed concern about the two houses in the
centre and the first floor windows of the houses and the impact along the side
of his house where the study window and side window of the living room were.
They were not considered to be main rooms and that the back garden was the most
private area of the adjacent property and that there would not be any
unacceptable overlooking. Nevertheless, it had to be noted that the neighbour's
concerns remained.
Reference was made to the
significant concerns locally about the potential impact of the development on
the neighbourhood, bearing in mind that the area and local residents had
suffered from the effects of flooding in the past. It was confirmed that this
matter had been brought to the developer's attention from the outset and that
the developer had been advised that it would be necessary to make clear
assurances, through information and specific management measures, that aspects
of the development relating to site drainage would not affect residents. It was
noted that the intention was to create an area below the public open space that
would have specialist equipment that would collect water in purpose built tanks
that would then be released into the nearby Afon Beuno.
It was noted that
confirmation had been received that the development would not increase the
flood risk down the river provided it was carried out in accordance with the
agreed details. It was acknowledged that the situation caused concern to
residents but that there was no objection to the plan or the proposed water
management measures by the relevant bodies, which were the Council's Drainage
Unit, Natural Resources Wales, and Welsh Water.
It was noted that nine of
the houses were affordable houses and that a housing association had
corresponded confirming, if the application were successful, that they would
take on the units. It was noted that the recommendation had been amended from
what was noted in the report, and that it was recommended that the affordable
houses should be secured through a condition rather than a 106 agreement as it
would facilitate the transfer of the units to a housing association.
It was noted, because of
the site's drainage requirements and the need to gain access for maintaining
equipment beneath the open space, that the developer had confirmed, as with the
previous application, that he was willing to make a financial contribution of
£6384.60 towards the installation of new playground equipment, or to improve
existing equipment at another play area in the village. It was highlighted that
the Joint Planning Policy Unit had confirmed that the financial contribution
and area of the open space complied with policy.
It was noted that the
Education Department had confirmed that there was sufficient capacity at the
local school, and confirmation that a Welsh Language Statement would not be
necessary as the proposed development would not provide more than the
indicative housing provision set out for the settlement in the Local
Development Plan.
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 and his family lived in Tywyn that would be
located next door to plots 14 and 16 for 43 years;
·
That
his garden was currently entirely private and that no window would overlook his
property as part of the plans approved under the previous application;
·
The
proposal meant that the rear of the houses on plots 14, 15 and 16 would face Tywyn; consequently, five top floor windows would overlook
his property;
·
The
developer had ensured that there would be no overlooking on the estate, his
house would be the only house to lose privacy;
·
The
developer had submitted an assessment of the overlooking but the bedroom
windows had not been assessed;
·
Although
efforts had been made to reduce overlooking from plot 14, no efforts had been
made to reduce the overlooking from plot 15;
·
The
assessments for plots 14 and 15 were inconsistent, both were the same;
·
It
would be a small matter to amend the plans to protect their privacy;
·
Although
members had visited the site, he invited them to his property to see the
situation.
(c) Exercising his right to
speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main points:-
·
An
application to erect 26 houses on the site had been approved and the permission
had been implemented and was extant;
·
The
situation of the housing market in 2009 had been difficult because of the
economic recession, over the past seven years houses had been developed in
Bangor, Caernarfon, Y Felinheli and Pwllheli;
·
The
application plans approved in 2009 were outdated, unsuitable and did not meet
demand;
·
The
proposal offered improved access and an alternative drainage plan agreed with
the Local Authority;
·
The
area of the open space was larger;
·
31%
of the units were affordable and it was intended to sell the affordable units
to a Housing Association;
·
In
terms of overlooking and privacy, efforts were made to reduce the impact with a
2.3 metre high fence being erected to mitigate the impact on the ground floor
and that the unit in plot 14 had been set farther from the adjacent property
and no first floor windows looking into the rear of the adjacent property.
·
The
plan would benefit the local area and would provide open market units;
prospective buyers had already expressed interest in the units;
·
Local
contractors and local sub-contractors would be used where possible and they
would endeavour to source materials locally.
(ch) The local member (not a member of this
Planning Committee) noted the following main points:-
·
He
agreed with the objector's comments;
·
In
general, there was no local objection to housing on the site;
·
There
were concerns relating to flooding and sewerage. Two pumps have existed on Glanrafon Estate since September 2018 and these highlighted
the flooding problem;
·
Believed
that it would be more appropriate to return the surface water to Afon Gwyrfai rather than Afon Beuno because of the tidal
flow and it would give peace of mind to the residents of the Glanrafon Estate and nearby residents;
·
Was
of the opinion that it would be better to use the approved entrance within the
extant permission, as it would be safer for pedestrians than the proposed
entrance since Lôn Cefnwerthyd,
following construction of the bypass, would be an access road only.
(d) In response to the comments
of the objector and local member, the officers noted:
·
In
relation to flooding matters, that paragraph 5.34 of the report explained why
it would not be possible to discharge the surface water into Afon Gwyrfai. The water would be
released gradually from the underground tanks to retain the current flow. That
local concerns had been taken seriously and had been included in discussions
with officers from the Drainage Unit, Natural Resources Wales, along with
others and confirmation was received that it was an appropriate solution;
·
That
Welsh Water was satisfied that the sewerage situation could be acceptable;
·
That
the Transportation Unit had confirmed the entrance to be safe, and that a pavement
would be created in the direction of the village and on the other side to lead
pedestrians before crossing;
·
That
the assessment in the report went into detail about the concern of overlooking
from plots 14, 15, and 16. The applicant had made substantial amendments to
plot 14, which addressed concerns of overlooking. The officers, whilst
acknowledging the concerns, believed plots 15 and 16 to be acceptable. If the
Committee wished, further discussions could be held with the applicant about
plots 15 and 16 in order to find a better solution;
·
With
regard to the previously approved entrance, the intention was to widen Lôn Cefnwerthyd at the entrance
and remove part of the hedge and wall. The road, once the bypass was complete,
would be an access road only. Although a two-way road would better serve local
residents, additional traffic to the estate would have to be encouraged to turn
at a junction in the village, go down the road to another junction and back
down to the site. The proposed entrance would be easier to find and use, and it
would be possible to create a footpath and simple crossroad to cross to the Glanrafon Estate, which was the most direct route to the
village facilities.
(dd) It was proposed to defer the application in
order to hold discussions with the applicant about the locations/design of
plots 14, 15 and 16, in order to avoid overlooking. The proposal was seconded.
During the ensuing
discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:
·
Would
the hedge along Lôn Cefnwerthyd
be removed?
·
The
layout of the flats should be considered and consideration should be given to
exchanging the type of unit on plot 13 with the type of unit on plot 18, as
this could mean a greater distance between the unit on plot 18 and the adjacent
property. Consequently, it would better protect privacy. Did not object to the
proposal to develop houses on the site;
·
There
was usually flood prevention equipment under the road. Had there been an
attempt to avoid installing playground equipment on the open space by
installing the equipment under the area? The financial contribution from the
applicant toward playground equipment on another site within the village was
not sufficient;
·
How
many houses had been designated for the site in question in the Local
Development Plan?
·
It
appeared as though the officers were asking the Committee to go against policy
as the number of units was more than 10% greater than what had been designated
in the Local Development Plan. That the affordable units, three houses and six
flats, did not meet the need but was rather based on profit. The applicant
lacked good will in relation to the playground requirements. The application
should be deferred in order for officers to explain why the recommendation was
made to go against policy and make an unlawful decision;
·
That
the 12% increase in the number designated for the site in the plan was
excessive;
·
The
proposal was an over development of the site and consideration should be given
to removing units rather than changing their setting. Confirmation was needed
of the location of the gas pipe on site;
·
As
regards the capacity of local schools, were there any projections for the
numbers of children?
·
Discussions
should be held with the applicant, as the overlooking from the development
would intrude on the privacy of the adjacent property. The proposal would be an
over-development of the site and the financial contribution toward playground
equipment on another play area within the village would not be sufficient. The
follow up report to the Committee needed to respond to the comments of the
Committee;
·
The
local member was thanked for his presentation. Discussions should be held with
the applicant in relation to the matters of overlooking;
·
Discussions
with the applicant about the setting/design of plots 14, 15 and 16 should be
reopened and no windows should overlook the rear garden of Tywyn;
·
Considering
what could be obtained with the financial contribution, the formula used to calculate
the financial contribution was contrary to legislative requirements relating to
the rights of children to play safely.
(e) In response to the above
observations, the officers noted:
·
Not sure whether the hedge along Lôn Cefnwerthyd would be removed, perhaps the plans gave the
impression that it would. A passing place would be created on the road;
·
The site had been designated for approximately 26 units in the Local
Development Plan;
·
As noted in paragraph 5.1 of the report, the number of units designated
in the Local Development Plan was indicative. There was flexibility and the
number could be greater or smaller. The recommendation was not contrary to
policy. In terms of the mixture of the size and type of units, the Housing
Strategic Unit confirmed that the proposal addressed the need in the area. The
proposal would provide a cross-section of houses;
·
If the application were deferred, the subsequent report to the Committee
would address the matters raised in terms of the number of units in the context
of the Local Development Plan. The recommendation was certainly not unlawful;
·
The Education Department was consulted about the capacity of the local
schools, and in accordance with the procedures set out in the Supplementary
Planning Guidance: Housing Development and Education Provision, it was not
forward looking as it was based at the time of submitting the application;
·
The financial contribution of £6384.60 toward playground equipment was
based on a national formula as noted in Supplementary Planning Guidance: Open
Spaces in New Housing Developments.
RESOLVED
to defer the application.
Supporting documents: