Agenda item

Outline application with some matters reserved (appearance, landscaping) for the provision of 5 self-build plots for affordable dwellings.

 

Local Member: Councillor Gareth Williams

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: Defer in order to conduct a site visit and request more information from the applicant

 

Outline application with some reserved matters (appearance, landscaping) to create five self-build plots for affordable housing

 

a)    The Planning Manager highlighted, that an outline application was in question to consider the principle of the proposal, and details of the access, landscape and scale of the development. The appearance and landscape did not form part of the application.

 

It was explained that the existing site was open agricultural land with the surrounding boundaries in a mix of natural hedgerows, earth banks and post and wire fencing - the whole site was outside the existing development boundary of the village of Aberdaron and was therefore a site to be considered in open countryside, with parts of the site's southern boundary partially abutting the development boundary. It was reiterated that the site was within the Llŷn AONB and the Llŷn and Bardsey Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest designations.

 

⁠In terms of the development's principle, it was noted that Aberdaron had been defined as a rural / coastal village in the LDP with approximately 95 houses and some facilities within the development boundary - the latest housing figures showed that there was capacity within the Aberdaron supply level for a development of this scale.

 

With the site being outside the development boundary, it was highlighted that Policy TAI 16 was the relevant policy and consideration needed to be given to the acceptability of the site as an exception site. It was noted in the formal response given to the pre-application enquiry that evidence was needed in the form of a Housing Statement to include an assessment of the need of eligible applicants for affordable housing. ⁠Despite this, information was received in the form of a questionnaire completed for local connection for 5 people/couples. ⁠It was highlighted that this information, in addition to a chapter within the Planning Statement, was the justification for the need of these five houses, and although there was also reference noting that these individuals had registered with Tai Teg, no evidence had been submitted in the form of an assessment to prove that these individuals had a real need for affordable housing or the type of houses that they needed.

 

⁠The officer noted that it was completely essential that applicants for affordable housing were assessed fully for their needs and that 'desire' was not a sufficient reason for the need for affordable housing. ⁠Reference was made to the Housing Unit's observations where it was noted that six people were on the Tai Teg register for intermediate properties, but Tai Teg had confirmed that the six, who were on their register for intermediate properties, had not been fully assessed for a self-build plan. As a result, it was not considered that the need had been proven and therefore the proposal did not comply with policy TAI 16.

 

Reference was made to Policy TAI 8 that also required a housing statement for an application of this size to ensure an appropriate mix of housing. ⁠It was reported that no statement had been received, although this had been clearly highlighted in the pre-application advice, and without this information, it was not possible to assess the mix and type of housing provided, their affordable price or how the proposal would address the needs of the local community. Examples of this would be to note that the number of bedrooms in each affordable property would correspond to the needs of the individual. ⁠It was also expected for the independent valuation of the houses to be submitted to apply a discount to ensure that they were affordable - the need for evidence of this type was completely essential to conduct a full assessment and was a minimum requirement with this type of application.

 

In the context of visual matters, it was noted, although this was an outline application, without detailed design details, that consideration needed to be given to the visual impact of the development. It was highlighted that the site was sensitive with an open feel, which contributed to the quality of the landscape. ⁠Although there were other houses in the vicinity, the setting of the proposed houses within an open field away from the existing built pattern would stand out, and the impact would be substantial - would change the site's visual appearance. Members were reminded that the site lay within the AONB where the conservation value was of the same status as a National Park and that there was a duty on authorities to protect and improve the natural beauty of the AONB.

 

It was reported that Natural Resources Wales did not often offer observations on landscape matters, but observations were received advising the need to submit landscape assessments to fully assess the visual impact of the AONB. ⁠It was explained that the information had not been sought as this would not make the proposal acceptable as it already did not comply with other policies.

 

In the context of residential amenities, it was noted that it was inevitable that there would be some impact deriving from the proposal, but considering the location of the site and the fact that the houses could be designed to avoid over-looking and loss of privacy, it was not considered that the proposal was contrary to policy PCYFF 2 that protected general and residential amenities.

 

It was reported that a Language Statement had been submitted that formed part of the planning statement and that the Language Unit had declared the need to include the latest information from the Census, instead of the 2011 figures. ⁠Despite that, receiving such a correction would not make the rest of the development acceptable and it would be unfair to expect the applicant to incur additional costs knowing that this information would not ensure compliance with all relevant policy requirements. ⁠However, no evidence was received that showed that this development would likely be harmful to the language and because the proposal was for five affordable houses, where the occupancy would be limited to local people only, it was not considered that the proposal was likely to be harmful to the language. As a result, it was not considered that the proposal was totally contrary to policy PS 1.

 

In the context of transport and access matters, it was highlighted that the Transportation Unit had received late observations that confirmed that they had no objection to the proposal and it was possible to set conditions to ensure safe access to the site.

 

In the context of biodiversity matters, although additional observations had been received by the biodiversity unit, they did not respond to any additional information and, consequently, the planning authority's assessment remained relevant. It was explained that the development site was approximately 150m from a watercourse, hydrologically linked to the Pen Llŷn and Sarnau Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the West Wales Marine Special Area of Conservation. It was reported that Natural Resources Wales had highlighted concerns about disregarding the proposed development's harm to the SAC. It was reiterated that the Biodiversity Unit agreed that there was a need to conduct a Habitats Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations considering the size of the development and its location near a Special Area of Conservation, but unfortunately, not enough information had been included with the application to be able to complete the assessment - the application was therefore contrary to policy PS 19, AMG 5 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations.

 

The Planning Authority was eager to emphasise that it was fully aware of the current housing situation in the village of Aberdaron and how difficult it was to find a house at an affordable price. ⁠It was expressed that the principle of a new residential development that would contribute towards meeting the local need would be fully supported and there was support for that within the LDP's policies. However, it did not mean that any proposal submitted could be approved and there was a need to ensure that proposals fully complied with the requirements of relevant policies that protected an extremely sensitive area from unacceptable new developments. The disappointment of receiving an application with lack of substantial evidence was reiterated, although the needs of the application had been highlighted in the pre-application advice.

 

The recommendation of the Planning Authority was to refuse the application. Three reasons for refusal were listed relating to the visual impact of the development, lack of information about the need and mix of housing, and lack of information to complete an assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations.

 

b)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant made the following observations;

·         There was no guarantee of being able to live at home

·         The youth of the area was acknowledged as 'the caravan generation' who had to live in a caravan in their parents' garden as they could not afford to buy a house locally

·         That they asked for the right to live within their square mile

·         The average house price in Aberdaron was £376,000 - there was no hope of affording this and therefore were forced to move out of the area - no fairness in this

·         Aberdaron was a small Welsh community that was dying on its feet. Without any affordable housing for young people, there was no future for the community. This was a heartbreaking situation when communities were seen thriving in other places.

·         This was only an application for five houses; Five houses for five local families

·         Ysgol Gynradd Abersoch had to close because local people had been priced out of the area - would this be Aberdaron's fate?

·         Cyngor Gwynedd's priorities were to put the people of Gwynedd at the centre of everything - by refusing the application, this would not put the people of Gwynedd at the centre

·         The wish was to live at home. Do not take the right away from us

 

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

·         'Housing Emergency' - words that were often heard, and local people were priced out of their area. Consequently, communities were lost - the emergency had hit Pen Llŷn

·         The average house price in Aberdaron was £376,000 - there was no hope for young people to afford these houses on low incomes

·         Daily Post headings noted that only 2% could afford to buy a house in Aberdaron

·         The application in question was a golden opportunity - the landowner offered plots of land to construct houses

·         The idea / plan was one that people craved in the area

·         Local people had already shown an interest

·         Although the officers recommended refusal, there were positive observations to the application

·         The Community Council, unanimously supported the application and Welsh Water had confirmed that there was existing capacity to link to the public system

·         Although some concerns had been highlighted by Natural Resources Wales, it was possible to overcome them

·         AONB noted that the plan was not intrusive to the landscape - if screening, it could contribute to local biodiversity

·         The Biodiversity Unit noted that the assessment was good

·         The Housing Strategic Unit noted that the plan partially addressed the need

·         Cyngor Gwynedd took pride in the fact that they put the people of Gwynedd at the centre of everything they do, if so, they had to support the application and support young people's wish of living within their square mile - the recommendation was to refuse! Refuse the opportunity for youth to stay home!!

·         Although officers noted that the site was outside the development boundary, maps highlighted that it would form a tidy extension to the village and a cluster within the 20mph.

·         That two houses already existed in the field that had been built through a previous successful project in 2011

·         ⁠Although the 5 local people / couples had registered with Tai Teg, it seemed that evidence was needed in the form of an assessment to prove 'real need'. Why had this not been discussed in the pre-application advice?

·         Although the officers noted that the site was fully visible within the AONB, it was noted that the AONB officer had had the opportunity to present observations and had noted that the development would not be intrusive to the landscape. Therefore, why raise a concern if the AONB officer was happy with the application?

·         There was also an intention to keep public footpath 17 that ran along the boundary and was useful to walk to the village

·         There was an intention to plant trees that would add to the area's biodiversity

·         In the context of 'ease of arrangements to find and give an opinion and advice before the applicant went ahead to submit an application', it was noted that there was disappointment that information had been presented following pre-application advice, how was the applicant therefore meant to know to do things differently? The appropriate steps had been addressed.

·         This was not an application that had been 'thrown together' - preparation work of over a year with research and amending information and feedback following pre-application advice - this was an outline application; therefore it would be difficult to present detailed plans.

·         The refusal reason that the development would 'have a harmful impact' was very disappointing. This did not make any sense - the community was dying because young people moved away to live. There was no community without young families. This regenerated a community; it did not create an impact

·         There was a duty on the Council to support young people instead of hiding behind policies. Pleaded that the Committee supported the application and give the young people of Aberdaron the opportunity to stay in their community.

 

d)     It was proposed and seconded to approve the application, contrary to the recommendation because the development did not create a visual impact on the landscape, and it abutted the development boundary.

 

Although they were not Planning reasons, the proposer noted that the plan was an affordable way of erecting houses in Aberdaron, instead of forcing young people to move to a different area. Such a plan would keep people local and protect the language. He reiterated that the AONB officer was happy with the plan and that the demand had been proven locally.

 

In response to the reasons, the Monitoring Officer noted that some elements of the application were acceptable but that a lack of necessary information that would ensure appropriate conditions for affordable housing had not been presented e.g., discount size. The Assistant Head reiterated that the lack of evidence was a problem, because evidence about the demand and the affordability was fundamental to making a decision. He also noted that conducting a habitats assessment was a legal requirement on the Council and this information had not been presented with the application. Despite supporting the application, it was not possible to recommend approval without evidence. He suggested that the Committee deferred making a decision and apply for evidence to overcome the refusal reasons and conduct a site visit to assess the relevance of the site within the wider area.

 

An amendment was proposed to approve the outline application on condition that information was presented, as well as a correct environmental assessment of the site.

 

In response, the Monitoring Officer noted, despite being an outline application, it would not be possible to decide on approving and then ask for information - implementing this would be a legal risk.

 

The amendment was not seconded

 

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

·         The land abutted the village boundary

·         There were not many suitable locations in Aberdaron to build houses - this would be the best place to build five houses

 

·         ⁠Despite being supportive of affordable housing, the application was premature

·         There were numerous barriers here for people who wanted to live in their habitat

·         Agreed with the applicant and the Local Member that people had a right to live at home

 

In response to an observation regarding whether the officers had discussed the lack of information submitted with the applicant, the Planning Manager noted that pre-application advice had been implemented where it was listed in detail what needed to be done, but they did not return to the applicant because enough information had been presented in the pre-application advice.

 

In response to a question regarding why the plot of land was not included by Self Build Wales, the Monitoring Officer noted that this specific application looked at the process of using Tai Teg. The Planning Manager reiterated that consents for 106 did not fall under Self Build Wales.

 

f)       An amendment was proposed and seconded to defer the application in order to receive more information and conduct a site visit by ensuring sufficient time for the applicant to present information.

 

RESOLVED: To defer in order to conduct a site visit and request more information and evidence from the applicant