Agenda item

Erection of one affordable dwelling with associated access, parking and landscaping (revised scheme).

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Craig ap Iago

Link to relevant background documents

 

DECISION:

·         To defer the application in order to receive written evidence of the applicant's situation with Tai Teg.

·         Consider reducing the footprint of the dwelling

·         Consider options to separate the land / reduce the size of the land plot

 

Application for erecting an affordable dwelling with access, parking and associated landscaping (amended plan).

Attention was drawn to the late observations form which contained observations from the Policy Unit.

 

a)         The Development Control Team Leader highlighted that this was a full application for erecting an affordable dwelling with access and a parking space, together with associated landscaping. It was noted that 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 that ran between the field that was the subject of the application and the last house in the village (Glaslyn). It was explained that the application was a resubmission of that refused under reference C21/0430/22/LL, and previously C20/0853/22/LL.

 

It was noted that the proposal submitted included an e-mail from the agent, dated 15.07.2022, attaching a Tai Teg letter dated 28 November 2019, stating as follows: "Your application has been approved. You can now proceed to search for a property on the Tai Teg website and to make an application should you find a suitable property. Please note:- it is important that you read the following in order to understand what needs to be completed should you apply for the property." It did not appear that the applicant had been assessed in detail for constructing his own affordable house and although the Council requested further evidence of the applicant's need for an affordable self-build house with the application, it did not receive a response in the lifetime of the application, and these discussions went back to March 2023.

 

The application was submitted to the Planning Committee at the Local Member’s request.

 

In the context of the principle of the development, it was explained that the site was located outside the Penygroes development boundary as noted in the LDP. Policy PCYFF 1 ('Development Boundaries') stated that proposals outside development boundaries would be refused unless they were in accordance with specific policies in the Plan or national planning policies or that the proposal showed that its location in the countryside was essential.   Policy TAI 16 'Exception Sites' stated that provided it could be shown that there was a proven local need for affordable housing which could not be delivered within a reasonable time-scale on a market site within the development boundary, as an exception, proposals for 100% affordable housing plans on sites immediately adjacent to development boundaries that formed a logical extension to the settlement would be granted.

 

It did not appear from the information submitted with the application that the application site touched the development boundary, with a gap between the site and the development boundary (which appeared to be a public footpath). In planning policy terms the site was defined as a location in open countryside and, therefore, was not relevant to be considered in terms of Policy TAI 16, 'Exception Sites', which was supported in the Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Affordable Housing'.

 

In this respect, paragraph 6.4.36 of the LDP stated that developments in the open countryside had to satisfy national policy and Technical Advice Note 6 in terms of meeting requirements to be classed as a rural enterprise dwelling. No such justification appeared to have been presented with this application.

 

It was highlighted that house prices had increased substantially since the previous application and at that time, the Housing Strategic Unit confirmed that a discount of 45% would be required in order to make the property affordable. It was noted that a 45% discount on the £225,000 price would bring the price down to £123,750, and this could be considered reasonable for a new, single intermediate property. Nevertheless, there were concerns about increasing house prices, and the price of the property/land could increase substantially in the future to a level where it could be argued that the property would not be affordable, regardless of the discount, and an application to lift the 106 agreement could be received.  It was noted that the LDP only supported proposals for affordable units where it could be ensured that they remained affordable in perpetuity.

 

It was also noted that the application site (including the proposed house and its curtilage) was very large, and there was concern that providing a curtilage of this size would be likely to ultimately increase the value of the property, meaning that the house would not be affordable in terms of its price.  On this basis, the proposal was considered to be contrary to the requirements of policy TAI 15 of the LDP and the SPG Affordable Housing in respect of securing an affordable unit in perpetuity and the floor area shown.

 

In the context of biodiversity matters (including conditions if an application was to be granted), transport and access matters, visual, residential and general matters together with linguistic matters, it was noted that the development was acceptable, but as a whole, it was considered that the proposal for erecting one affordable dwelling on the outskirts of the village of Penygroes was unacceptable, and was contrary to the requirements of policies PCYFF 1, TAI 15, TAI 16, the SPG Affordable Housing 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; and criteria 1, 2 and 3 of policy PCYFF 2 in terms of compliance with local and national policies and development density.  The recommendation was to refuse the application.

 

b)        Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent made the following observations:

·         That the application was for an affordable house from the same applicant as before

·         That the land had been given to him by a family member

·         That the application had been submitted to the Committee in December 2021 and the Local Member at the time was supportive

·         That there had been a detailed discussion on the application during the Committee and that a proposal had been made to approve, stating the observation that the application was not in open countryside

·         That the site was located approximately 1.5m from the development boundary with a public footpath running between the boundary and the site

·         That concern had been expressed that the proposal was too large in size - the applicant had reduced the proposal's floor area size and resubmitted the application

·         That discussions had been held with Tai Teg but it seemed that the discussion was going round in circles because of the elements of self-build and the elements of affordable housing - the applicant was trying his best to overcome this

·         Should the application be approved, a 106 agreement would remain on the house for the future

·         That the applicant had responded to the Committee's requirements

 

c)         Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following observations:

·         That he encouraged the Committee to go against the recommendation, to ensure fairness

·         That a young local man wanted to live and raise a family in his community - he would use Gwynedd services, Gwynedd schools and support the local economy

·         That there was a lack of housing for local people When an option arose to keep people locally in our communities he was eager to support this

·         The site was not in the middle of the countryside - it was between two houses - this was a case of filling a gap

·         The development boundary did not follow a straight line

·         That an access track and services already existed there

·         That the size of the house was too large was only a matter of opinion

·         A request for the Committee to support the application; to allow the applicant to remain local and raise a family in his community

 

ch)     It was proposed and seconded to approve the application, contrary to the recommendation.

Reasons:

·         That the plot of land was not 'in the middle of the countryside'

·         It complied with PCYFF1 TAI 15 and 16 - proximity to the development boundary

 

In response, the Assistant Head stated that sufficient evidence had not been submitted that the applicant was eligible for an affordable house and that the application in question was for a large house (which was not affordable). He also added that he had not received written evidence of the Tai Teg situation. He suggested that the decision could be deferred and to seek clarity on the situation.

 

d)         During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by members:

·         Would it be possible to separate the land from the property and make the plot of land for the development smaller?

·         Would an application for three bedrooms be too big? Exceeded the threshold?

·         Why should affordable housing be small in size for local people?

·         Would erecting a house on this site extend the boundary?

 

RESOLVED

 

• To defer the application in order to receive written evidence of the applicant's situation with Tai Teg.
• Consider reducing the floor area of the house.
• Consider options to separate the land/reduce the size of the land plot.