Agenda item
Demolition
of existing public house and the erection of six houses
LOCAL
MEMBER: Councillor Dylan Bullard
Decision:
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.
Minutes:
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.'
Supporting documents:
PDF 52 KB