Application for the
erection of one affordable dwelling with associated access, parking and
landscaping
LOCAL
MEMBER: Councillor Judith Humphreys
Link
to relevant background documents
Decision:
To refuse
Reasons:
·
The proposal is not appropriate as a logical extension
to the settlement because of its location and the current boundaries that
separate the settlement from the countryside in this location. The development
is therefore contrary to the requirements of policies PCYFF 1, TAI 15 and 16 of
the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026 and the
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Affordable Housing which ensure suitable
affordable housing developments as an exception on the peripheries of
development boundaries.
·
The size of the proposed
property and curtilage is too large to enable the property to be affordable in
the future and comply with the scale of development density. In addition, the
applicant needs a two-bedroom property, and the surface area proposed is
excessive for this need. The development is therefore contrary to the
requirements of policies TAI 15 and PCYFF 2 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint
Local Development Plan 2011-2026 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance:
Affordable Housing which ensure development of an acceptable scale which would
be affordable in future.
·
The development is tantamount to erecting a new house
in open countryside without any justification, and is contrary to the requirements
of policies PCYFF 1 and paragraph 6.4.36 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint
Local Development Plan 2011-2026 and Technical Advice Note 6: Planning for
sustainable rural communities.
Minutes:
Application for erecting an affordable dwelling with
access, parking and associated landscaping
Attention was drawn to
the late observations form.
a)
The Development Control
Team Leader highlighted that this was a full application for erecting a
single-storey affordable dwelling with access and a parking space, together
with associated landscaping and a substantial curtilage. 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 at the far end - the public footpath ran between the field that was
the subject of the application and the last house in the village (Glaslyn).
The
application was submitted to the Planning Committee on 12.07.2017, where it was
decided to defer the application in order to receive further information
regarding the following:
·
A valuation of the
proposal.
·
Confirmation of the
applicant's current need in terms of the number of bedrooms, and the
applicant's situation.
·
Confirmation of whether
the applicant had considered providing another affordable unit on the site, as
it was substantial.
·
Confirmation of whether
the applicant was prepared to sign a local person affordable housing 106
Agreement should the Planning Committee decide to permit the application.
It was explained that
the applicant had provided a response to the above.
It was noted that there
was a gap between the site and the development boundary (which appeared as a
public footpath) and in terms of planning policy the site had been defined as
being in the open countryside and had been considered in terms of Policy TAI 16
'Exception Sites', which was supported in the Supplementary Planning Guidance,
'Affordable Housing'.
It was reported that
the proposed dwelling was being proposed as an affordable dwelling, with
confirmation from Tai Teg that the applicant was
suitable for an affordable property. It was added that the application's agent
had confirmed that the applicant currently had need for two bedrooms, with the
intention of having a family within the floor area of the proposed property. It
was highlighted that the internal floor area of the two bedroom, single-storey
dwelling was approximately 50 square metres greater than the maximum specified
in the Supplementary Planning Guidance for an affordable two bedroom,
single-storey dwelling, and 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 noted that the applicant had intended to have his family within the
property without the need for an extension, but it was not clear what were his
actual intentions as only two bedrooms were proposed.
A red book valuation
had been presented for the property and the Strategic Housing Unit had
confirmed that in terms of affordability, a 45% discount would bring the level
down which was reasonable for a new intermediate single property. Despite this,
there was concern about the price of property and/or land that could increase
significantly in the future to a level where it could be argued that the
property was not affordable whatever the discount, and that an application may
be submitted to lift the 106 Agreement. It was noted that the LDP supported
proposals for affordable units where it could be ensured that they remained
affordable in perpetuity.
It was considered that
the proposal for erecting one affordable dwelling was unacceptable, and was
contrary to the requirements of policies PCYFF 1, TAI 15, TAI 16, the
Affordable Housing SPG and TAN 6 in respect of the site's eligibility as an
exception site and the need for a new house in open countryside, the size of
the curtilage, together with the lack of confirmation of the number of bedrooms
that would satisfy the need/size of the property.
b)
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
parcel of land that was owned by his family - a sustainable home, a stone's
throw from the home where he was raised.
·
He worked locally - the location of the home was convenient.
·
The width of the public
footpath was half a metre - Were these reasonable grounds for noting 'outside
the boundary' and preventing the opportunity for a local person to have a home
in the area?
·
There were no local objections to the proposal.
·
The application responded to the requirements of Policy TAI16.
·
Tai Teg
had confirmed that the person was eligible.
·
The development did not stand alone - it bordered a row of houses.
·
The applicant was prepared to sign a 106 Agreement.
·
A valuation report had
been submitted in accordance with the criteria.
·
This was an opportunity to help and support a young person to live in his
local community.
c)
A proposal was made to
approve the application and it was seconded.
ch) During the ensuing
discussion, the following observations were made by members:
·
The development was not in the countryside - there were other houses
nearby.
·
The size of the house represented
an affordable dwelling.
· Although living alone at the moment, he was
planning for the future.
·
The need for local
housing for local people was accepted, but the house was too large for an
individual.
·
There was enough space
on the site to build three affordable houses.
In response to a question regarding reducing the size
of the house and curtilage to overcome the affordability element, the Assistant
Head noted that the house in question had been regarded as a family home and
therefore highlighted the need to consider affordability because one person
would be living in the house. The Monitoring Officer added that the application
was 'an individual's application' and not a 'family application'.
d) A vote was taken on the proposal to approve
the application.
The proposal fell.
A vote was taken on the proposal to refuse
the application.
RESOLVED to refuse the application
REASONS
1.
The proposal is not
appropriate as a logical extension to the settlement because of its location and
the current boundaries that separate the settlement from the countryside in
this location. The development is therefore contrary to the requirements of
policies PCYFF 1, TAI 15 and 16 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local
Development Plan 2011-2026 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Affordable
Housing which ensure suitable affordable housing developments as an exception
on the peripheries of development boundaries.
2.
The size of the
proposed property and curtilage is too large to enable the property to be
affordable in the future and comply with the scale of development density. In
addition, the applicant needs a two-bedroom property, and the surface area
proposed is excessive for this need. The development is therefore contrary to
the requirements of policies TAI 15 and PCYFF 2 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey
Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance:
Affordable Housing which ensure development of an acceptable scale which would
be affordable in future.
3.
The development is
tantamount to erecting a new house in open countryside without any
justification, and is contrary to the requirements of policies PCYFF 1 and
paragraph 6.4.36 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan
2011-2026 and Technical Advice Note 6: Planning for sustainable rural
communities.
Supporting documents: