Renewal of planning application reference No. C08A/0568/24/LL for the erection of 24 dwellings, alterations to a present entrance and the creation of estate roads.
Local Member: Councillor Aeron M. Jones
Minutes:
Renewal of planning
application number C08A/0568/24/LL for the erection of 24 dwellings,
alterations to an existing entrance and the creation of estate roads.
(a)
The
above application was submitted to the Planning Committee to update Members and
remind them that the application had been approved at the Planning Committee
dated 28.07.14 subject to the applicant signing a legal agreement under Section
106 which involved ensuring that six of the 24 houses were affordable houses
for general local need together with providing an educational contribution as
it had been estimated that there was not enough capacity within Ysgol Felinwnda in the 2013-14 academic year for an additional
increase of over 30 pupils.
However, during 2014, the capacity of Gwynedd schools,
including the above school, had been reviewed and as a result of this review,
the Education Department had confirmed that the school’s capacity had increased
from 30 to 56 pupils. Therefore, this meant that there was capacity in the
school for additional pupils which would arise from this development. To this
end, the applicant would no longer be required to provide a financial
contribution.
Reference was made to
the relevant policies and public consultations within the report and it was recommended to approve the
application subject to material planning conditions.
(b) The Local Member (not a member of this
Planning committee) noted the following main points:
·
That
on the whole he did not object to the application but that he questioned the
increase in the school’s capacity to 56 and as it was a modern development it
was anticipated that more than 3 children would be likely to go to the school
and he had asked the Director of Education how the capacity had increased.
·
He
appealed for the Planning Committee to visit the site as well as the school
which included two classrooms and a hall.
·
He
was in favour of the development subject to discussions with the builder to
provide a playing field for the village and a financial contribution for the
school.
·
The
above would enable the builder to construct an additional house on the play
area of the proposed estate which would make a total of 25 houses instead of
24.
·
Should
a playing field be provided on the estate, there was a need to remember that
the road was dangerous.
·
No
problem was anticipated with policy A2 as Welsh was the language of the village
of Dinas.
·
The
design was of good quality but nothing had happened since the submission of the
application in 2009 and that there was a real need for housing for young people
in the village.
·
The
Community Council had objected to the original application as the entrance and
the road which led past the development were unsuitable for the number of
houses but since then it had been understood that the developer had agreed to
widen the main entrance.
(c) In response to some of the above
observations, the Senior Planning Service Manager explained that the main
consideration in this application was that the Planning Committee had approved
the exact application in July 2014 for 24 dwellings (with 6 of them being
affordable houses) but since then the Council’s Education Department had
undertaken an assessment of the school’s capacity and that it was possible to
make better use of the available space in the school. Therefore, based on the
evidence submitted by the Education Department it would be possible to approve
the application for 24 dwellings with the play area without an educational
financial contribution.
(ch) It was proposed and seconded to approve the
application in accordance with the recommendation.
(d) An amendment to the proposal was proposed,
namely to visit the site and the following points in favour of the amendment
were noted:
·
That
the local member had mentioned negotiating with the builder to relocate the
playing field for the whole community.
·
Concern
as to how the Education Authority had reached a figure of 56 and that there
were implications to this which meant that the school was currently half empty.
There was potential to attract more budget to the school if there were 56
children in the school.
·
The
Planning Committee had a duty to visit the site.
·
Children
from the estate would protect the playing field on the estate and possibly
prevent village children from using it.
(dd) Should the application be approved, a Member noted his wish to
add a condition to protect most of the existing hedge on the road to Rhos Isaf.
(e) In response to an observation made
regarding visiting the school, the Senior Solicitor explained that based on the
matters at hand it could not be justified to visit the school as this would not
affect the evidence that had been submitted by the Council regarding the
school’s capacity. It was explained that perhaps it would be wise for the
Committee to ask for additional information from the Education Department as
well as a justification of the increase in the school's capacity if this
information was not clear to them. It
was also noted that Committee needed to seriously consider whether or not there
was justification for them to undertake a site visit in order to consider the
open space within the site as this was in accordance with Council policies.
A vote was held on the amendment for a site visit and this
amendment was carried.
RESOLVED: To defer the application and ask the Planning
Committee to visit the site.
Supporting documents: