Application for the erection of one affordable dwelling with associated access, parking and landscaping
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Judith Humphreys
Decision:
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?
Minutes:
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?
Supporting documents: