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)

 

   Members of the Committee had visited the site on 09-12-19

 

a)      The Assistant Head of Planning and the Environment elaborated on the background of the application and noted that the application had been discussed originally at the Planning Committee on 01-07-19 where it was recommended to approve the application contrary to the officers' recommendation, on the grounds that it would meet the local need for housing.  Following the decision, the Assistant Head 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.  A further report was submitted at the Committee on 09-12-19, however it was noted on the late observations form that a request had been received from the applicant to defer the discussion on the item so that they had an opportunity to discuss the options referred to in the report.  Following the deferral, it was reported that no further comments had been received from the applicant.

 

Attention was drawn to the discussions that had been held between the applicant and the Planning Authority since the committee in July 2019, along with confirmation that the applicant had provided clarity on issues relating to ownership certificates, ecological / reptile report and an update on the Tai Teg assessment. 

 

The members were reminded that five reasons for refusing the application had been noted (lack of need, location, size, value of the houses and lack of reptile survey), and reference was made to the information that responded to those issues in the report.  Reference was made to the criteria of Policy Tai 6 where a request was made of evidence that the affordable house was required for local need.   It was reported that the applicants had been reassessed by Tai Teg to identify whether they were eligible for an affordable house.  In this case, it was reported that two couples had been assessed by Tai Teg (in accordance with the usual procedure), in order to assess whether they were eligible for an affordable house.  Following an assessment by Tai Teg, it was confirmed that one couple was eligible for an affordable house; however, the other couple was not eligible for an affordable house. 

 

It was highlighted that the valuation for the houses as part of the application had been received from Beresford Adams noting a price of £325,000 on the open market.  This was considered low and therefore a consultation was held with the District Valuer for an unbiased opinion in accordance with the Affordable Housing SPG.   The District Valuer is of the opinion that value of the houses is £370,000 each on the open market.  In order to ensure that the price of the houses is affordable (£146,851 - Strategic Housing Unit analysis), there would be a need to apply a substantial discount of 60% in order to have a price that was comparative to affordable housing.  It was reiterated that applying such a high discount caused problems as the lenders were unwilling to give a loan on these grounds.  It was also noted that the need for a 60% discount, which was more than the affordable price, highlighted the fact that the houses were not affordable in the first place.  Therefore, it was confirmed that the application did not comply with the relevant criteria of policy TAI 6 in respect of need, location, size and value of the houses.  It was noted that a reptile survey had addressed the biodiversity matters on the site.

 

The Assistant Head referred to the risks to the Council should the application be approved contrary to the recommendation.   He also referred to three potential options in terms of determining the application.  It was emphasised that option a), namely to refuse the application, was the only option where there was no risk to the Council and where firm evidence provided grounds to the decision.   

 

It was noted that option b), namely to approve the application with a 106 agreement and a 60% discount in order to ensure that the houses are affordable to the future would be problematic in terms of attempting to secure a loan etc., and affordability.  Also, the Committee was reminded that one couple was not eligible for an affordable house following a Tai Teg assessment; therefore, they would not be eligible to live in any of the houses with option b).

 

The Assistant Head also referred to option c) which would mean approving two open market houses, emphasising the risks of approving houses in the countryside, without any control over the occupancy or prices of the houses.

 

 

It was considered that the proposal was not acceptable as it did not comply with planning policy requirements or the Council's local guidelines, or with national policies and guidelines.  

 

b)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member noted the following main points:

 

·         That the application was unique

·         That the proposal would provide homes for life for professional Welsh people who had chosen to remain in the area due to family connections

·         That the area needed professionals to remain in their local communities

·         That the policies did not support applications for people to remain in their local communities - there was a need to scrutinise the suitability of the authority's affordable housing policies in communities such as Llanengan;

 

·         That the income assessment highlighted that the applicants could not live in the house or buy a house in the local area - the open market housing in the area were not affordable;

·         The applicants had decided on the self-build option as the land had been gifted to them by the family; 

·         That the criteria was out of their reach - that they were willing to accept conditions / had listened and accepted advice, and had adapted plans as needed;

·         Native Welsh speakers had to be encouraged to remain in their communities if we were to respond to the challenge of securing one million Welsh speakers by 2050 - planning policies posed a threat to the language;

·         Support had been shown to the application by the local community, local Councillors and Liz Saville Roberts, the MP for Dwyfor-Meirionnydd. 

·         A Councillor's role was to support local people and place Gwynedd at the centre of what they did

 

c)    It was proposed and seconded to approve the application, contrary to the recommendation. The proposer confirmed in accordance with Option b) of the report, that the permission was subject to an affordable housing 106 agreement with a 60% discount in the market price in an attempt to ensure that the houses would be affordable in the future. 

 

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

·      That there was a need to take a step back and consider the context of the application - the policy was not suitable and appropriate.

·      There was a need to address the fact that people needed to feel as if they 'belonged' to their community - if people left, this created a poor community

·      That there was a need to review the planning policies - policies did not make sense in some cases

·      The only way to keep Welsh speakers in the area was to approve the application.

·      That the market price in some pockets of Gwynedd closed out local people.

·      Encouraged further discussions to seek a solution - size and location could be discussed

·      Reducing the size of the house would reduce its value in order to reach the affordable housing target

·      That pressure had to be placed on the Government to formulate policies that gave people a right to live in their areas, to facilitate the local need for houses 

        

·         Sympathy for the applicant's situation, but the proposal was contrary to too many policies

·         That the applicants had to be eligible for affordable housing 

 

RESOLVED to approve the application with a 106 agreement with a 60% discount of the market price in accordance with option b) of the report.

 

In accordance with the Procedural Rules, the following vote to approve the application was registered:

              

In favour of the proposal to approve the application, (8)  Councillors Seimon Glyn, Louise Hughes, Elin Walker Jones, Dilwyn Lloyd, Gareth A Roberts, Eirwyn Williams, Gruffydd Williams and Owain Williams

 

Against the proposal to approve the application (4):  Councillors Stephen Churchman, Anne Lloyd Jones, Berwyn Parry Jones and Edgar Owen

 

            Abstaining, (0)

 

            Conditions:

           

1.         Time

2.         In accordance with the plans

3.         Materials

4.         Slate

5.         Withdrawal of PD

6.         Welsh Water / SUDS

7.         Biodiversity

8.         Highways

9.         Landscaping