Agenda item
Construction of 2 affordable houses (revised application).
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor John Brynmor Hughes
Minutes:
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.
Supporting documents: