Agenda item

Construction of  2 affordable houses (revised application).

 

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor John Brynmor Hughes

 

Link to relevant background documents

Construction of two affordable dwellings (amended application). 

 

(a)     The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application and noted that the site was in the countryside on the outskirts of the housing cluster of Llanengan. It was explained that Policy TAI 6 of the JLDP was the relevant housing policy for clusters, and this could enable the construction of houses in clusters if compliance could be secured with all criteria contained in the policy.

 

          Details were given on the criteria:

·         Criterion 1: 'The need for an affordable house for local need (in accordance with the List of Terms) has been proven' - That the need for an affordable house for the initial occupiers of house number 1 had been proven, but the need for an affordable house for the occupiers of house number 2 had not been proven. In light of this, the proposal does not fully meet criterion 1 with regard to proving the need for affordable housing.

·         Criterion 2: 'The site is an infill site, between buildings highlighted on the relevant Inset Map, or a site directly opposite the curtilage of a coloured building' - The application site was not an infill site as it was not located directly adjacent to the curtilage of a coloured building with the county road between the road coloured in red and the site. The New Houses in Rural Villages Supplementary Planning Guidance gave an idea of the type of sites which were acceptable, and that sites where there was a road between the building coloured in red and the site were not suitable.

·         There was no concern with regard to criterion 3 and 4.

·         Criterion 5: 'The size of the property reflects the specific need for an affordable house in terms of the size and the number of bedrooms' - The houses in question were two-storey with an internal floor surface area of approximately 116m². Since the application was submitted, a new Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Affordable Housing has been adopted. It could be seen that the size of the affordable houses had been reduced in comparison to the previous Affordable Housing SPG; now, the size for a two-storey, 5 person, three bedroom house was 94 square metres. It was not considered that the size of the houses reflected the size of affordable properties.

·         There was no concern with regard to criterion 6.

·         Criterion 7: 'There are mechanisms to restrict the occupancy of the house initially and in perpetuity to those who have a need for an affordable house' - As part of the application, an estimate was received for the proposed houses, which was prepared by Beresford Adams. The estimate noted that the open market price for the houses would be £325,000. A 45% discount linked to the Affordable Housing 106 agreement would not make the houses affordable for other families in the area. There had been instances in the parish of Llanengan in the past, where house prices were high and, therefore they were not really affordable houses. Consequently, 106 agreements were removed from the houses, thus making them open market houses.

         

          It was recommended to refuse the application as the proposal was contrary to many criteria in Policy TAI 6. The need for an affordable house for local need had not been proven for both houses, the site was not in an infill site between buildings or a site that was directly adjacent to the curtilage of a coloured building, the size of the houses were larger than what was noted in the Affordable Housing SPG, and the price of the houses, even with a discount, would not ensure that they were affordable houses forever. The proposal was also contrary to Policy AMG 5 of the JLDP, because a reptile survey had not been submitted.

         

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

·         They had lived in the area for years, and that they felt passionate about the village and the location;

·         The proposal would enable both couples to stay in the area to raise a family;

·         The applicants worked in the area and contributed to the community; two of the applicants were builders, one worked in the medical field locally, and she was a new Headteacher at a local school;

·         As part of her work as a Headteacher, she worked in accordance with the Language Charter and Welsh Government's Cymraeg 2050 report, which aims to have a million Welsh speakers by 2050. Welsh Government's document noted: 'In Welsh communities, the challenge is to ensure that people have high quality jobs, attractive careers and homes in order for them to be able to stay or return to these communities';

·         That house prices in the area were extremely high, and the only option to settle there was to build a house. Land had been received from family in order to self-build, which was affordable in the true meaning of the word;

·         The prospective occupiers of house number 2 were not eligible under Tai Teg, because Tai Teg processes did not provide for self-builds;

·         The development would infill appropriately;

·         An attempt had been made to reduce the size in order to get closer to the criteria, but this was an attempt to develop homes for life;

·         Completely accepted the conditions of the Biodiversity Unit, and intended to follow the guidelines in order to avoid harm to the area's biodiversity.

 

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

·         That he had received a letter of support to the application from Liz Saville Roberts, Member of Parliament for Dwyfor Meirionnydd. He agreed with the observations in the letter, and therefore, he would read the content of the letter;

·         That the application site was an appropriate infill site;

·         That the propriety of the authority's affordable housing policies needed to be scrutinised in communities such as Llanengan;

·         The situation of Llanengan could not be compared with the situation of other communities in Gwynedd as Llanengan was an extension of Abersoch, and the open market housing in the area were not affordable;

·         The way the affordable housing policy was interpreted for the market housing situation in Llanengan should be revised; unless this was done, the affordable housing policy would not be implemented in accordance with the aspirations of the people of Gwynedd;

·         The specific circumstances of the applicants had not been considered in the context of self-builds;

·         That the size of the houses had been somewhat reduced, and the applicants were prepared to sign a 106 agreement;

·         In terms of the value of the houses in future, in order to satisfy the need, a sub-standard design would need to be agreed. The specification of affordable houses on a housing estate in Mynytho was different, therefore there was no consistency;

·         That the applicants had the means and the skills, and something was amiss in the interpretation of the policy if they were not worthy of affordable houses;

·         That the applicants had received advice from an officer that an application for two houses would be more acceptable in terms of infill;

·         That two small cottages were for sale near the site; one for over £300,000 and another for £250,000;

·         That the houses would only be served by one access, with the boundary being set back to widen the road;

·         Should the Committee believe that the application be refused, a site visit should be considered, because an appeal would be submitted should the application be refused;

·         Support for the application had been received from councillors and former councillors;

·         That the Community Council were surprised that their views had not been accepted.

 

(ch)   It was proposed and seconded to approve the application contrary to the officers’ recommendation.

 

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

 

·         That the application in question was unique, and would provide homes for life for professional Welsh people, enabling them to stay in Llanengan;

·         The policy did not take into consideration the situation of the nearby areas of Abersoch in terms of market prices;

·         Sympathy for the applicant's situation, but the proposal was contrary to too many policies, therefore the application could not be supported;

·         Full sympathy was given to the applicants, but a similar application had been refused in Llanbedrog. There was a need for consistency;

·         That the Welsh language and culture was under threat, and the economy of the area was fragile. It was a difficult decision, and that refusing the application would shatter the hopes of young families to stay in Pen Llŷn. Welsh Government's ambition of achieving a million Welsh speakers would not be realised if this application be refused;

·         A difficult application to determine. If the application be approved, it would go against policies and the policies would need to be reviewed; consequently, there would be an influx of such developments;

·         Sympathy with the applicants' situation, but the houses would be there forever. Tai Teg should look at the affordability of self-builds. The policies did not support the application;

·         Self-building was the only way to obtain an affordable house. In the context of infill, the houses were dispersed in Llanengan, and the land opposite was no better. That house prices in the Abersoch area were out of reach for young people and that they moved out of the area. The only way to keep Welsh speakers in the area was to approve the application. In accordance with what was noted in the Supplementary Planning Guidance, that the size of an affordable house was 94m², which is too small to raise a family, therefore the size aimed for should be revisited;

·         The houses should be bound to an Affordable Housing 106 Agreement.

 

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

·         Whilst understanding that it was a difficult decision for the Committee, the policy set the circumstances in the context of affordable housing. The houses had been valued at £325,000, therefore the houses were not affordable, and there was no purpose to creating a 106 agreement. Approving the application would mean approving open market housing in the countryside;

·         That there were firm reasons to refuse, therefore approving the application would be contrary to the recommendation and contrary to policy. It was understood that members wished to support local people, but there were many properties for sale nearby. Although the houses would be affordable to build due to the skills of the applicants and land ownership, the houses would not be affordable in future. An intention to refer the application to a cooling-off period, should the application be approved, was noted;

·         The houses would not be affordable, even with a 45% discount linked to a 106 agreement. There had been a successful appeal to lift an Affordable Housing 106 agreement from a site near the application site, as it was not an affordable house. There was no doubt about the motivation of the applicants, but the houses would not be affordable. Similar applications had been refused not so long ago, and the application in question was contrary to policies relating to developments in the countryside. That there was a need to be aware of the implications of approving the application;

·         Although applications were considered on their own merits, consistency was necessary in relation to implementation. The application in Llanbedrog was refused on the grounds of affordability. There was a need to be cautious of the impact of a decision to approve the application on other applications. The reasons for refusing were robust and, of course, the applicants had a right to appeal;

·         That the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan was being monitored, and the plan would be reviewed in 2021, which could mean amendments, but the decision had to be made on the basis of existing policies;

·         Should the application be approved, it should be noted that it would be subject to receiving a reptile survey in order to comply with the requirements of legislation;

·         The houses could be bound to an Affordable Housing 106 agreement, but this would mean additional costs for the applicants. The agreement could be lifted on appeal as the houses would not be affordable.

 

RESOLVED to approve the application, contrary to the officers’ recommendation, subject to receiving a reptile survey report.

 

          Reason:

          Satisfies the local need for housing.

 

The Senior Planning Service Manager noted his intention, in accordance with the Procedural Rules of this committee, to refer the application to a cooling-off period and to bring a further report before the committee highlighting the risks associated with approving the application.