Agenda item

Demolition of existing public house and the erection of six houses 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Dylan Bullard

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To refuse

Reasons:

1.    In considering the scale, design and number of proposed dwellings, it is not considered that the development would be suitable for the site and that its appearance would be unacceptable in the local area.  In addition, given the narrow nature of the site, the number of units included in the plan and the lack of amenity space associated with the individual houses, it is believed that it would be an over-development of the site and harmful to residential amenities. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the relevant requirements of policies PCYFF 2 and PCYFF 3 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan.

 

2.    On the grounds of the lack of suitable housing mix along with an insufficient provision of affordable housing it is believed that the proposal is unable to meet the requirements of policies TAI 8 and TAI 15 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan, along with the relevant advice given within the 'Affordable Housing' and 'Housing Mix' Supplementary Planning Guidance.

 

3.    It is not believed that the applicant has submitted enough information to assess whether the proposal meets the requirements of criterion 1c of Policy PS1 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan that requires a Welsh Language statement to demonstrate how the proposed developments would protect, promote and strengthen the Welsh language.  On this basis, the Local Planning Authority has not been convinced that the proposal would not have a negative effect on the Welsh language in the plan area.

4.    It is not believed that sufficient information has been submitted to justify the loss of the public house facility on the grounds of the relevant requirements of policy ISA 2 C of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan together with Supplementary Planning Guidance: "Change of use of community facilities, employment sites and retail units"; that note the need to confirm, via evidence, that there have been efforts made to market the site.

5.    The site lies within an area that is at risk of surface water flooding and there is insufficient information in the submitted Flood Consequence Assessment to demonstrate that the flood risk can be controlled acceptably over the development's lifetime and consequently, the application is contrary to criterion 8 of policy PS 5 and criterion 4 of policy PS 6 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan, as well as the guidance given in paragraph 11.1 of Technical Advice Note 15.

 

Demolition of existing public house and erection of six dwellings

Attention was drawn to the late observations form.

 

a)    The Planning Manager highlighted that this was a full application to demolish an existing two-storey public house and build 6 two or three bedroom houses in a terrace.

 

It was explained that the site was located within the development boundary of the town of Pwllheli as noted in the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan and that the principle of the development was being considered against Policy PCYFF 1 ('Development Boundaries'), Policy PS 5 (Sustainable Development), Policy TAI 1 (Houses in the sub-regional centre and urban service centres), and Policy TAI 15 ('Affordable Housing Threshold and Distribution'). In the context of policy PCYFF 1, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable in principle due to the site's location within an existing development boundary and similarly, that policy PS 5 encouraged developments on previously developed sites.

 

Nevertheless, as the settlement had seen its expected level of growth, through units being completed in the period between 2011 and 2021, developing units in the existing land bank and developing the sites designated for housing, justification was needed for the application, outlining how the proposal would address the needs of the local community. Every applicant submitting a planning application for 5 or more housing units, must submit a Housing Statement to support their planning application in accordance with the methodology outlined in Appendix 2 of the SPG Housing Mix:  It was not considered that the information submitted as a part of this application was sufficient to show clearly that the development in question met a specific need within the local community.

 

It was explained that Policy TAI 15 of the LDP stated that Councils will seek to ensure an appropriate level of affordable housing in the plan area, and it was noted that for Pwllheli, the threshold for the need for such a provision was two or more housing units. As the proposed development proposed an increase of 6 units, it corresponded with the threshold of policy TAI 15 for making an affordable housing contribution. As Pwllheli was located in the 'Larger Coastal Settlements' Housing Price Area in the LDP, it was noted that providing 30% of affordable housing would be viable - this equated to 1.8 units in this development.  It was highlighted that one unit was proposed in the application as an affordable unit and so a commuted sum to the value of 0.8 of a house would be expected to meet the policy requirement.  It was reiterated that if the applicant was of the opinion that it was not viable to provide the expected affordable element here, it would be their responsibility to clearly highlight on an assessment proforma, the viability of the circumstances that justify the lower affordable housing provision. Nevertheless, it was reported that the applicant had not submitted information in terms of considerations that related to the viability of the development and whether providing the expected affordable element would affect considerations in relation to this element.

 

In addition, in terms of assessing the principle of the proposal, consideration should be given to the current and established use of the building as a public house. It was explained that the information submitted with the application noted that the owners had found it difficult to secure tenants to operate the public house or new owners, and that the public house had been closed since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020. It was reiterated that detailed information had not been submitted which justified losing the facility on the grounds of the required evidence under Policy ISA 2 - 'Change of use of community facilities and services, employment sites and retail units', which noted that evidence would be required that efforts have been made to market the property suitably for a one-year period.  

 

It was highlighted that no adaptations had been submitted in respect of the visual and residential matters refusal reasons of the previous application, but that the Biodiversity Unit confirmed that the content of the Protected Species Assessment was acceptable and that they agreed with the mitigation measures as proposed. It was reiterated that the Land Drainage Unit had noted in its response to the consultation that the site was situated within zone A in terms of flood risk and it was considered that it faced little or no risk of flooding. However, it was shown that the site was at risk of flooding on the latest surface flooding maps, which introduced an additional refusal reason.

 

In accordance with criteria (1c) of Policy PS 1, as this was an application for 6 units the need for a linguistic statement must be considered if the type of units did not address evidence of the need and demand for housing within a Market Housing Assessment and other relevant sources of evidence.  It was noted that a Linguistic Statement had been submitted with the application; however, it appears that the statement did not follow the methodology to undertake such a statement as included in the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidelines and therefore it would be impossible to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the linguistic impact based on the information submitted.

 

Although additional information had been submitted as a part of this application to respond to two of the refusal reasons of the previous application, the concerns that were the basis of the four other refusal reasons continued and therefore it was not considered that the proposal was acceptable.

 

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

·         That the development in question was considered unfavourably in part for the following reasons:

1. Scale, design and number of proposed dwellings

2. Housing Mix and Affordable Housing

3. Impact on the Welsh language

4. Loss of community facilities

·         In response to the concern about the scale, design and number of proposed dwellings:

§  The design for the six houses were for families that needed to upgrade to more favourable buildings

§  The design was not dissimilar to other developments in the town which had a tight space leading to a loss of parking area and garden. The proposed development was similar to other permitted projects. The aim was to provide houses that were genuinely needed.

§  The commercial viability of the development needed a minimum of five properties to be viable - considering the target market and the current increase in prices and availability of materials

§  It was not uncommon to have a small garden in a town centre

·         In response to the objection relating to Housing Mix and Affordable Housing:

§  Pwllhelli was not a popular option for purchasing second homes but again, there was demand for quality affordable housing for local people or for those who needed to upgrade. It was noted that the design was aimed towards this market and responded to the guidelines discussed in the 'Second Homes - Developing New Policies in Wales" report by Dr Simon Brooks (2021)

·         In response to the objection relating to the Welsh language:

§  Much of the younger generation found it difficult to find a suitable settlement, with some moving out of the area, taking the language with them.

§  Without houses for the younger generations and expanding families, there was a risk of losing substantial contributions to the local community

§  A substantial number of local homes across Llŷn were second homes. Pwllheli was not a desirable location for purchasing second homes, and the proposal offered an excellent opportunity for local people who needed houses.

§  The project was supported by the local Councillors

§  Local people supported the proposal.

§  The proposal would help reduce the problem caused by the lack of local houses.

§  If we were to protect the Welsh language, more homes must be provided for local people.

·         In response to the objection relating to losing a community facility:

§  The Llew Du was not viable as a Public House any more.

§  The Pub, although it had been refurbished on numerous occasions, had now reached the end of its practical use. The proposals reviewed for refurbishment were not financially viable.

§  The previous tenants and leaseholders had invested considerable time and financial resources trying to regenerate the Pub, but to no avail.  This was now a common trend across the country - in cities and towns 

§  Efforts had been made to sell and / or lease the property but nobody had shown an interest.

§  The 'drinking' culture had reduced substantially over the last decades and the pubs were not a hub for society any more.

·         The application, should it be approved, would benefit the local community - would provide the local houses that were genuinely needed.

·         The hope was that the Committee should agree that the proposed development responded to the need positively, and offered:

1.    Local accommodation for families in the town centre - this reduced the need for vehicles that would consequently reduce the carbon footprint.

2.    Help to achieve the needs noted in the second homes policy.

3.    Made better community use of the site, both visually and financially

4.    Neatened the area.

 

c)    It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application.

 

d)    During the ensuing discussion, the following observation by a member was noted:

·         That the town of Pwllheli had already reached its goal

 

In response to a comment that the applicant, in resubmitting the application, had not met the refusal reasons of the previous application, it was noted that the case officer had re-explained the refusal reasons, but that the applicant had re-submitted the application without amendments - it was reiterated that the choice and decision of the agent was beyond the control of the Planning Department.

 

RESOLVED to refuse.

 

Reasons:

1.    In considering the scale, design and number of proposed dwellings, it is not considered that the development would be suitable for the site and that is appearance would be unacceptable in the local area.  In addition, given the narrow nature of the site, the number of units included in the plan and the lack of amenity space associated with the individual houses, it is believed that it would be an over-development of the site and harmful to residential amenities. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the relevant requirements of policies PCYFF 2 and PCYFF 3 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan.

 

2.    On the grounds of the lack of suitable housing mix along with an insufficient provision of affordable housing it is believed that the proposal is unable to meet the requirements of policies TAI 8 and TAI 15 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan, along with the relevant advice given within the 'Affordable Housing' and 'Housing Mix' Supplementary Planning Guidance.

 

3.    It is not believed that the applicant has submitted enough information to assess whether the proposal meets the requirements of criterion 1c of Policy PS1 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan that requires a Welsh Language statement to demonstrate how the proposed developments would protect, promote and strengthen the Welsh Language.  On this basis, the Local Planning Authority has not been convinced that the proposal would not have a negative effect on the Welsh language in the plan area

 

4.    It is not believed that sufficient information has been submitted to justify the loss of the public house facility on the grounds of the relevant requirements of policy ISA 2 C of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan together with Supplementary Planning Guidance:   "Change of use of community facilities and services, employment sites and retail units"; which notes the need to confirm, with evidence, that efforts have been made to market the site

 

5.    The site lies within an area that is at risk of surface water flooding and there is insufficient information in the submitted Flood Consequence Assessment to demonstrate that the flood risk can be controlled acceptably over the development's lifetime and consequently, the application is contrary to criterion 8 of policy PS 5 and criterion 4 of policy PS 6 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan, as well as the guidance given in paragraph 11.1 of Technical Advice Note 15.'