Agenda item

Application for the erection of one affordable dwelling with associated access, parking and landscaping

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Judith Humphreys

 

Link to relevant background documents

To defer the decision in order to hold further discussions with the applicant to find out

·         What was the current 'need'?

·         Had he considered erecting another affordable dwelling on the site to get more value from the plot?

·         Was he willing to consider a local need 106 agreement – affordable home on the property?

 

a)         The Senior Development Control Officer elaborated on the application's background noting that the site was located within an agricultural field on the outskirts of the village of Penygroes along a narrow road that turned into a public footpath. It was highlighted that the application was a resubmission of that refused under reference C20/0853/22/LL and had been submitted to the planning committee at the request of the Local Member.

 

It was explained that Policy TAI 16 'Exception Sites' stated that provided it be shown that there was a proven local need for affordable housing which could not be delivered within a reasonable time-scale on a market site within the development boundary, as an exception, proposals for 100% affordable housing plans on sites immediately adjacent to development boundaries that formed a logical extension to the settlement would be granted.

 

It was reported that information had not been submitted with the application noting that the application site touched the development boundary - it appeared that there was a gap between the site and the development boundary (which appeared to be a public footpath). In planning policy terms the site was defined as a location in open countryside and, therefore, was not relevant to be considered in terms of Policy TAI 16, 'Exception Sites' - this was supported in the Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Affordable Housing'.

 

It was noted that the proposal was being proposed as an affordable dwelling. Although Tai Teg had confirmed that the applicant was eligible to purchase an affordable dwelling or self-build an affordable dwelling, no further information regarding the applicant's particular need for an affordable dwelling had been submitted as part of the application. It was highlighted that the internal floor area of the 2 bedroom, single-storey dwelling was approximately 110m square which was 50m greater than the maximum specified in the Supplementary Planning Guidance for an affordable 2 bedroom, single-storey dwelling. It was also noted that the height of the main roof-space meant there was potential to provide an additional floor above part of the dwelling in future. It was considered that the application site (which contained the proposed house and its curtilage) was very large, and that providing a curtilage of this size would be likely to increase the value of the property ultimately, which would render the house unaffordable in terms of price. On this basis, the proposal was considered to be contrary to the requirements of policy TAI 15 of the LDP and the SPG Affordable Housing in respect of the floor area shown.

 

It was explained that policy PCYFF 2 provided development criteria, and stated that proposals must demonstrate compliance with all relevant policies of the LDP and national planning policies and guidance in the first place. It was reiterated that the policy listed a series of criteria that related to making the best use of land, incorporating amenity space, including provision for storing, recycling and managing waste, and including provision for effectively treating and eradicating invasive species. A site of this size would usually be expected to provide around three living units - it was expected to provide new housing on a scale of 30 living units per hectare. 

 

It was considered that the proposal was unacceptable and contrary to the requirements of local and national policies.

 

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

•           He was speaking in favour of the planning application to erect a single-storey, two bedroom affordable dwelling on a plot of land near Oxton Villa in Penygroes.

•           He intended to build a moderatesized self-build house.

•           He was 30 years old and looking for somewhere to settle down and to raise a family in due course. His aim was to build a forever home in Penygroes that would allow him to stay in his home community.

•           He was a local person - he had attended both schools in Penygroes.

•           His parents came from the village, his parents' family still lived in Penygroes, his sister lived in the village along with many of his friends, which proved that he had several connections with the area.

•           He played an active part in the village community and allowing him to build a home in Penygroes would allow him to continue to contribute towards the community.

•           His family owned the plot and, therefore, it was a rare and special opportunity for him to build an affordable home for himself in the village.

•           Planning Policy Wales sought to support allowing a variety of sustainable sites for all types of property developers, including some in the self-build sector.

•           Although the internal floor area of the proposed development was 110m square, it was explained that it was a moderate-sized house for his family in future. Should he build a 58m2 house, this would mean that he would have to build an extension on the house in future for his family.

•           Two bedroom affordable homes built by Grŵp Cynefin in Penygroes measured more than 58m2.

•           The Council had granted Planning permission (reference: FPL/2018/40) for an affordable home in Benllech that had been separated from the development boundary by field access - he hoped that this application would be considered as an exception as only a footpath separated these boundaries.

•           No objections to the proposed development had been submitted by local residents.

 

c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following points:

•           She was supportive of the application.

•           It was a special opportunity for the applicant to build a home on a piece of land that was owned by his family - a sustainable home, a stone's throw away from the home where he was raised.

•           He worked locally - the location of the home was convenient.

•           Excellent opportunity for a young person to remain in their home area.

•           The width of the public footpath was half a metre - Was this a reasonable basis for noting 'outside the boundary'?

•           The applicant had proposed to provide a turning space.

•           There were no objections to the proposal.

•           There were examples of larger affordable homes being permitted.

•           An opportunity to help and support a young person to live in his local community.

 

ch.)      It was proposed to approve the application, contrary to the recommendation for the following reasons:

•           The location was suitable

•           Adjacent to the boundary - there was only a 'narrow parcel' of land between the boundary and the site

•           Other affordable homes of a larger size had been permitted

•           Why restrict surface area when more space would be needed for a family in future? - this created an obstacle

•           The design was acceptable

•           It would be possible to consider a section 106 condition

 

d) In response to the proposal, the Assistant Head of Planning and Environment noted that the reasons were acceptable in terms of technical matters, but there were shortcomings in the application, which related to meeting 'the need' rather than a 'desire'. He suggested that the application should be deferred in order to hold further discussions with the applicant.

 

dd) The proposer agreed to withdraw his proposal and re-proposed to defer so that officers could have an opportunity to discuss further with the applicant.

 

e) It was proposed and seconded to defer the decision in order to hold further discussions with the applicant.

 

f) During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by members:

•           The width of the footpath was no concern, but the plot was suitable for three dwellings - it was suggested to discuss constructing another affordable home on the site with the applicant in order to get more value from the land.

•           Needed to ensure consistency in terms of the surface area size of an affordable home

 

            RESOLVED

 

To defer the decision in order to hold further discussions with the applicant to find out

•           What was the current 'need'?

•           Had he considered erecting another affordable dwelling on the site to get more value from the plot?

•           Was he willing to consider a local need 106 agreement - affordable home on the property?