Agenda item

Development of 21 residential units comprising of 6 one- bedroom flats, 12 two-bedroom flats and 3 three-bedroom houses, with associated landscaping and vehicular access.

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Menna Trenholme

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: TO REFUSE

Reasons:

1.    The proposal is contrary to the requirements of Policies PS 17, TAI 1 and TAI 8 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan (2017) as it is considered that the applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence with the application to convince the Local Planning Authority that there is a need for additional one- and two-bedroom flats in Bontnewydd considering that this proposal exceeds the indicative figure noted in the Plan and would create an imbalance in the type and mix of small units within the village, and no evidence has been received that the proposal would respond positively to the needs of the local community.

2.    Evidence was not received about the need for the number of dwellings and up-to-date information within the Welsh Language Assessment to be able to assess whether the proposal meets the requirements of criterion 1c of Policy PS1 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan which requires a Welsh Language statement to demonstrate how proposed developments would protect, promote and strengthen the Welsh Language.  On this basis, the Local Planning Authority is not convinced that the proposal would not have a negative impact on the Welsh language in the plan area.

3.    The site lies within an area at risk of surface water flooding, and because sufficient information was not submitted with the Flood Consequence Assessment including a Water Conservation Statement which would have considered the safe development of the site and demonstrated that the proposed development would not displace surface water towards other properties, it is not believed that the proposal is acceptable based on flood risk and that it is, consequently, contrary to criterion 8 of policy PS 5, criterion 7 of policy PCYFF 2, criterion 6 of policy PCYFF 3, criterion 4 of policy PS 6, policy PCYFF 6 together with the instruction provided in paragraph 11.1 of Technical Advice Note 15.

4.    Insufficient information has been submitted as part of the application for assessing the impact of the proposal on the Special Area of Conservation, protected species and wildlife on the site. No Green Infrastructure Statement was submitted either, therefore the proposal is contrary to the requirements of policies PS19 and AMG 5 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (2011-2026) which protect species and wildlife along with the requirements within Chapter 6, Edition 12 of Planning Policy Wales.

5.    The proposal is contrary to policy ISA 5 and the SPG for open spaces as there is no justification for the lack of provision of open spaces within the development while also taking account of the lack of evidence of the need for the number of dwellings and the high development density.

Development of 21 residential units comprising 6 one-bedroom apartments, 12 two-bedroom apartments and 3 three-bedroom dwellings along with associated landscaping and a new vehicular entrance. 

 

a)      The Development Control Officer highlighted that the site was located within the development boundary of Bontnewydd and was designated for 10 dwelling-units within the LDP.

 

In the context of the principle of the development, the developer's intention was to provide 21 new units. It was suggested that the provision of an additional 11 units was significantly higher than the 10 units set out in the development plan policies for this site in Bontnewydd. To this end, it was reported that justification was needed with the application outlining how the proposal for an additional 11 units would meet the needs of the local community.

 

In terms of assessing the element of affordable housing on the site, there had been considerable uncertainty by the developer during the application. Initially, he had intended to provide 100% of affordable housing, but the scheme was then changed to 50% affordable housing, and by today the plan was to provide 30% affordable housing which was 6 affordable units on the site. It was added that the applicant had not provided an open market valuation for the site nor for affordable units at an intermediate level. It was also noted that no valid information had been submitted to prove the need for one- and two-bedroom affordable (intermediate) flats within the village of Bontnewydd. Based on the lack of information, it had been very difficult for officers of the Council's Housing Unit to assess the true affordability of the residential units for the site.

 

Considering the discrepancies and the invalidity of the information submitted by the applicant, neither the Local Planning Authority nor the Housing Strategic Unit were convinced that the applicant had justified the provision of 11 additional residential units within the scheme or that the mix of 18 residential units as one- and two-bedroom flats were truly needed. As a result, the proposal was not considered to ⁠meet the needs of the local community in accordance with the LDP's housing policies.

 

In respect of visual amenities, it was reported that the area was mainly residential, and that the proposal in terms of its scale and setting was acceptable. Regarding design, it was noted that initial discussions had identified concern about movement / mobility within and across the site along with the site's accessibility for wheelchair users, because of varying levels across the site and the fact that no disabled parking spaces had been designated. The department had enquired about the treatment and cross-section levels of the northern boundary abutting the river, with the retaining wall extending along the northern boundary. It was recognised that there were concerns about the design and the lack of information regarding the levels and treatment of the northern boundary, and had other elements of the application been acceptable, further discussions or the imposing of conditions could have resolved these concerns. 

 

As part of the public consultation process, several observations had been received about the need for the houses and regarding flooding issues, and references to the traffic and parking situation. Despite the comments, it was considered that the reports submitted with the application addressed the parking concerns, and the Transportation Unit had no objection to the proposal. It was not considered that the proposal would have a material adverse effect on the amenities of the local neighbourhood.

 

In the context of Drainage and Flooding issues, NRW and the Water Unit had been consulted on the matter of flooding. NRW had confirmed that the flood basin, which also acted as a surface water attenuation basin, increased the risk of flooding on the site. It was added that the Land Drainage Section were in the process of constructing a detailed flooding model for this particular area, and the current data submitted as part of the Flooding Statement to the application was not deemed to be up-to-date with the projections. It was also noted that no water conservation statement had been submitted with the application. As a result, without up-to-date information, it was not considered that flooding and drainage issues could be effectively managed on the site. With regard to Biodiversity and Trees issues, it was reported that the Biodiversity Unit required a further study relating to protected species and the impact on those habitats, and also reptile reports before making any decision. The trees officer had also highlighted concern over the loss of a corridor of trees along the northern boundary of the site as part of the development. Without a response to the comments relating to protected species by NRW and the Biodiversity Unit, the Ecological concerns remained with the development. 

 

In the context of the Welsh Language, it was reported that in response to the statutory consultation process, the Language Unit had stated that in order for them to undertake a fair and balanced analysis on the application, the latest information from the 2021 Census would need to be included. Further to this, as there was no hard evidence in proving the need for the number of additional houses and the mix of housing that had been offered as part of this proposal, no evidence had been presented to prove the certainty that the development would have a positive impact on the language.

 

In discussing matters relating to open spaces, it was highlighted that the Policy and supplementary planning guidance on open spaces emphasised that the provision of play/open spaces should be "within the site" in the first instance.      It was noted that the applicant had suggested that he would be willing to contribute to improving the existing provision within the community if the application was approved, but that alone was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the play spaces policies, as the policy required "on-site provision in the first instance". In addition, because the housing density was high on the site there was no room to provide a play area. Also, without justifiable evidence of the need for the number of houses and the development density it was not possible to meet the LDP's policy needs for playing spaces.

 

Although the Council recognised that the site had been designated for 10 residential units, based on the lack of information in proving the need for an additional 11 units and the mix of housing, it was believed that granting this application would lead to an imbalance in this type of residential accommodation provision in the village and that it would not respond positively to identified housing needs in Bontnewydd. It is also considered that the information presented as part of the application had been inadequate and inconsistent, there were significant concerns regarding flooding and biodiversity matters in the local area, and that full consideration had not been given to the development's effect on the Welsh language and open spaces within the site.

 

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

·        Because of the officers' recommendation to refuse the application, his intention was to discuss the refusal reasons.

·        It was clear that one of the main reasons for refusal was the proposed mix of smaller units being offered, and the lack of demand and justification for dwellings of this type.

·        It had been noted that originally, they planned to deliver the scheme as 100% affordable, but neither the planning officers nor the Housing Team had supported the scheme or the mix, suggesting that there was no demand within Bontnewydd or the surrounding housing market area for these types of units and that they would not provide the required grant funding to see the site being developed for affordable housing – as a result, the developer had then considered a mixture of market and affordable housing.

·        However, the information that the Strategic Housing Unit had provided counter-claimed this situation.  In April 2024 the number of applicants on the Social Housing Register in Bontnewydd was 291, with 28% or 81 of those people in search of a 1-bedroom accommodation and 40% or 116 people looking for a 2-bedroom accommodation. Therefore, 68% or 197 of those on the social housing register in Bontnewydd were looking for the type of accommodation that the proposed development was aiming to provide. 

·        It was also found, within the 2021 Census data, that household size (i.e. the number of residents living in a dwelling) in Bontnewydd comprised mainly of 1 or 2 people - accounting for 66% of the village's households. However, the current development pattern of Bontnewydd included an under-supply of these types of housing. In Bontnewydd there were only 11 one-bedroom properties and 85 x two-bedroom properties available. Only 21% of the houses in Bontnewydd were 1- and 2-bedroom properties, but yet, 1- and 2-person households occupied 65% of the current housing stock.

·        With 79% of the housing stock in the village being three-bedroom or more, there was evidence that most of the houses were being underoccupied because of a shortage of smaller properties to move into.

·        It was noted that the Planning Policy Unit had supported the justification and the mix of units in their response to the consultation in May 2024, although this had not been included in the officers' report.

·        Gwynedd had since adopted the Article 4 Direction in an attempt to overcome the housing crisis in the area, to give local people access to suitable and affordable homes. It was noted that it was confusing having to justify the demand for housing on a designated site in a sustainable location, and the fact that more evidence was required – beyond what had been submitted in the planning statement and housing statement – this was contrary to the local and national housing policy.

·        Had the housing mix and the scheme been acceptable, the planning department would probably have allowed more time for the applicant to address the concerns raised regarding ecology, trees and the flood risk.

·        It was noted that there was agreement that the floods attenuation basin would be installed underground to overcome the concerns around flooding; the green infrastructure statement was in the pipeline to address the requirements for a further survey and the trees that had been proposed to be felled were of a poor quality; and the effect on bats could be mitigated with a lighting scheme. Those documents were to be provided once the principle of the proposed development had been accepted by the planning officers, however, that support had not been received.

 

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

·        Although acknowledging that housing was needed in Gwynedd, the units in this development were not suitable for the centre of the village of Bontnewydd.

·        The applicant had not submitted enough evidence to support the application.

·        Knowing the local area, there was not enough demand for 1 and 2-bedroom properties in Bontnewydd; there was more demand for 2 / 3 and 4-bedroom properties for families – she was therefore unsure where the applicant had got the figures.

·        The number of units was higher than what was stated in the LDP.

·        The development squeezed the houses into the site – it did not offer enough green spaces or adequate parking provision.

·        The site was close to a river – this risked the nature of the river corridor and also affected floods prevention work that had been carried out on the river.

·        From speaking and discussing with local residents and the community council, the feeling was the same – the development as it stood was not suitable for the village of Bontnewydd.

·        She objected to the application.

 

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

 

            RESOLVED: TO REFUSE

Reasons:

1.     The proposal was contrary to the requirements of Policies PS 17, TAI 1 and TAI 8 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (2017) as it was considered that the applicant had not submitted sufficient evidence with the application to convince the Local Planning Authority that there was a need for additional one- and two-bedroom flats in Bontnewydd considering that this proposal exceeded the indicative figure stated in the Plan and would create an imbalance in the type and mix of small units within the village, and no evidence had been received that the proposal would respond positively to the needs of the local community.

2.     Evidence had not been received about the need for the number of dwellings and up-to-date information within the Welsh Language Assessment to be able to assess whether the proposal met the requirements of criterion 1c of Policy PS1 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan which required a Welsh Language statement to demonstrate how proposed developments would protect, promote and strengthen the Welsh Language.  On this basis, the Local Planning Authority was not convinced that the proposal would not have a negative impact on the Welsh language in the plan area.

3.     The site lay within an area at risk of surface water flooding, and because sufficient information was not submitted with the Flood Consequence Assessment including a Water Conservation Statement which would have considered the safe development of the site and demonstrated that the proposed development would not displace surface water towards other properties, it was not believed that the proposal was acceptable based on flood risk and that it was, consequently, contrary to criterion 8 of policy PS 5, criterion 7 of policy PCYFF 2, criterion 6 of policy PCYFF 3, criterion 4 of policy PS 6, policy PCYFF 6 together with the instruction provided in paragraph 11.1 of Technical Advice Note 15.

4.     Not enough information had been submitted as part of the application to assess the impact of the proposal on the Special Area of Conservation, protected species and wildlife on the site. No Green Infrastructure Statement had been submitted either, therefore the proposal was contrary to the requirements of policies PS19 and AMG 5 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (2011-2026) which protected species and wildlife, and also the requirements within Chapter 6, Edition 12 of Planning Policy Wales.

5.     The proposal was contrary to policy ISA 5 and the SPG for open spaces as there was no justification for the lack of provision of open spaces within the development while also taking account of the lack of evidence of the need for the number of dwellings and the high development density.