Agenda item
Erection of Affordable dwelling
LOCAL
MEMBER: Councillor Aled W Jones
Decision:
Minutes:
Construction
of affordable dwelling
Attention was drawn to the
late observations form.
a) The Development Control Team Leader highlighted that this was a full
application to construct an affordable home (four bedrooms) on land above Uwch y Don, Pistyll. The site was served by a steep unclassified
county road which led from the centre of the village that was located within
the Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and
the Llŷn and Bardsey Island Landscape of
Outstanding Historic Interest. The land had been designated as the Dolydd Pistyll Local Wildlife
Site.
The application was submitted to the planning committee at the Local
Member’s request.
Pistyll
was designated as a Cluster village in the Gwynedd and Anglesey Local
Development Plan, therefore, the relevant housing policy in this case was
Policy TAI 6 Houses in Clusters. It was highlighted that only affordable homes
could be approved in cluster villages and on suitable sites located adjacent to
buildings that were coloured red on the Inset Maps and subject to complying
with all of the policy's criteria.
It was highlighted that the proposal did comply with criteria 2, 3 and 4
of the policy, however in relation to criterion 1, whilst there was no doubt
that the applicant complied in terms of being a local person, they had to
consider whether the applicant was in genuine need of an affordable home as
they already owned a house. No evidence had been received to demonstrate that
it was not possible to extend the existing house to meet their needs and it was
not clear as to how much equity would be released in selling the current house.
Consequently, Tai Teg was not in a situation to
assess whether the applicant had a genuine need for an affordable home. New
housing in the countryside could only be approved as an exception to policy, as
the last possible resort, and there had to be no doubt that the affordable
element was valid. Whilst appreciating the applicant's situation, based on the
information to hand, the application did not meet the requirements of criterion
1 of the policy.
After the agenda had been published, an inconsistency in the scale of
the printed plans were highlighted and amended plans had been received on
6/12/21. A four-bedroom, 6-person house was expected to have approximately 110m
of internal floor space. The amended plans showed an internal floor area of
115m and it could be accepted that the applicant did require additional space
for a home office. There was no longer any objection to the size of the house,
however some concern remained on the size of the plot and the value of the
property as no open market valuation had been submitted. Therefore, the
proposal did not comply with criteria 5, 6 and 7 of the policy.
Additionally, a lack of information regarding the impact of the proposal
on the amenities of nearby residents and the wildlife site was highlighted,
however as the proposal did not comply with some of the criteria, the applicant
had not been asked to incur costs in providing such information.
Having considered the proposal against the relevant policies it was
considered that the proposal was unacceptable due to lack of evidence of an
affordable property and concern about the size and value of the plot. It was reiterated that the proposal did not
seek to retain the site's natural features in the best way possible for such a
rural location and they had not received a wildlife assessment. It was suitable
for a cluster village; however, it did not meet every criterion under Policy
TAI6.
b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the
following observations:
·
That he currently lived
in a former council house in Nefyn.
·
He lived in a council
street and suffered antisocial behaviour from neighbours who swore and shouted
obscene things at him and his family when they spent time in the garden or as
they approached their car.
·
He felt afraid in his
own property with loud noises on the street at times, which affected the sleep
patterns and development of his three-year-old son. The concerns had been
referred to Adra and to the Police on more than one
occasion. The situation was affecting their other nine-year-old son who
suffered from a condition where he made himself sick if there was any
disturbance.
·
He was deeply concerned
about his children's mental health and wished to leave the street but also
remain within the area to avoid any negative impact on the children by having
to change schools.
·
Originally from Pistyll, he was eager for the right to live at home and
contribute to his own locality and provide his children with a happy life,
which was what he had experienced.
·
His family had lived
there for five generations - his parents were farming the land and his father,
who was now approaching retirement age needed more support on the farm and was
suffering from the effects of knee surgery. As the only son, he felt that it
was his duty to continue with the family tradition.
·
If he were forced to
sell it would not be possible to stay in the local area as they were priced out
of the housing market (suitable four-bedroom houses in Nefyn
were in excess of £400,000 and there were no houses to rent in the area). This
price was not realistic for a single person salary - his partner was studying a
Mental Health course and was therefore not earning wages.
·
He relied on his mother
to provide childcare - back-up support in Pistyll.
·
Tai Teg
had said that the only way to address the criterion was to make his family
homeless but that did not provide them with security.
·
That his current house
was bound by a section 157 agreement and he was therefore in discussions with
Gwynedd Council to sell the house back to them.
·
Approving the
development would free up two houses for local people in the area and would
help to revive Pistyll which was quickly turning into
a holiday village.
·
He implored the
Committee to give a local family that was more than willing to compromise the
right to live at home.
c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the
following points:
·
That the application in
question was unique.
·
That the applicant
lived in a former Council house in Nefyn but
antisocial behaviour issues in the street were having a substantial impact on
him and his family and they wished to return to Pistyll,
the village where he was born.
·
The applicant had been
offered a plot of land by his father to build a house for the family - and this
would also enable him to help out on the farm.
·
A 157 condition on the applicant's
current house restricted the sale to people from Gwynedd. The applicant had
contacted the Council’s Housing and Property Department to enquire whether they
would be interested in buying back the house - this would mean affordable homes
available for two families.
·
Tai Teg's
advice was for the family to make themselves homeless!
·
A number of the aspects
complied with the criteria of Policy TAI 6 and the applicant was prepared to
compromise further with the requirements
·
Their hope was to
create a forever home - not a palatial second home, but an affordable home for
a local family
·
A number supported the
application - no objections - letters had been submitted in support of the
application
·
The vision of Gwynedd's
Housing Strategy was to support everyone in Gwynedd to prosper and to live full
lives in their communities and improve quality of life - this was an
opportunity to do this - the family met the requirements, and so why refuse
them? It was a deserving application.
·
Requested the Committee
to use its wisdom and protect the residents of Gwynedd.
ch) A proposal was made to approve the application and it
was seconded.
d) During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by
members:
·
The application was an
unusual one - the size was acceptable but there was a need to ensure
consistency with affordable homes requirements
·
The applicant was from Pistyll and was very active in his community - a golden
opportunity here to show support for a local family
·
The proposal would
blend in well in the area and with the nearby cottages
·
No local objection -
the Community Council had pleaded with the Committee to approve the application
·
The AONB Unit had
referred to the house as one of a relatively simple design
·
That a number of
significant points had been included in the public consultations
·
Gwynedd Housing
Strategy's chief mantra was to provide housing for local people
·
The location and size
of the house were suitable - the only objection was the need to evidence that
the applicant was eligible
·
The 157 Agreement on
the applicant's property would free up the house in Nefyn
- this was a solution to the problems in rural areas.
·
There was enough
evidence here to approve - the applicant's property would not be sold on the
open market - it would be restricted to Gwynedd residents only - it was assumed
that its value would not be high
·
People needed support
to buy locally and to stay in their communities
In response to the observations the Assistant Head of
Department noted that although he sympathised with the applicant, suffering
antisocial behaviour was not evidence that the applicant was eligible for an
affordable house. He noted that no evidence had been received to demonstrate
that it was not possible to extend the existing house to meet their needs and
it was not clear as to how much equity would be released in selling the current
house. Consequently, Tai Teg was not in a situation
to assess whether the applicant had a genuine need for an affordable home.
Whilst appreciating the applicant's situation, based on the information to
hand, the application did not meet the requirements of criterion 1 of policy
TAI 6.
dd) Proposed and seconded - an amendment to defer the application to obtain
more information
RESOLVED: To defer - a request for the applicant to
submit more information and evidence that he is eligible for an affordable home
Supporting documents:
PDF 267 KB