skip to main content

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

 

 

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: