Agenda item - Application No C24/0363/17/LL Land Adjacent To Bryn Llifon, Carmel, LL54 7RW

Erection of an affordable dwelling together with a new vehicular access onto the Public highway

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Arwyn Herald Roberts

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To approve contrary to the recommendation

1. 5 years

2. In accordance with the plans

3. Materials

4. Withdrawal of permitted rights and C3 use only

5. Section 106 Affordable Housing condition

6. Landscaping and land drainage and boundary details,

7. Biodiversity condition/biodiversity enhancements

8. A Welsh name for the property.

a. The Planning Manager explained that this was an application to erect one single-storey house sited on a section of an open field outside but abutting the development boundary of the village of Carmel.

It was reported, in terms of the principle of the development, that figures indicated that there was currently capacity in Carmel for this development, however the site was outside the development boundary, and it was necessary to ensure that the proposal satisfied policy TAI 16 that is material to rural exception sites. It was added that sufficient information had been submitted as part of the application to accept that there was a proven local need for affordable housing that cannot be delivered within a reasonable timescale on a market site within the development boundary. An open market valuation was received for the house shows that indicated that a discount of 40% could be imposed should the application be approved.

In the context of the dwelling's dimensions, it would measure approximately 89 square metres with a living/dining room, two bedrooms, an office together with a 20 square metre garage. Based on the additional information received from the agent explaining that the applicants were a young couple who intend to bring up a family in the near future, and this home would enable them to stay in Carmel, it was considered reasonable to support a house of this size as it would ensure that the dwelling would meet the needs of the current applicants and in the future. It was noted that it was not substantially contrary to the guidance in the affordable housing planning guidance in terms of the size of affordable housing.

In the context of the dwelling's design it was considered that the design and the materials were fairly standard and appeared to be acceptable. However, it was highlighted that policy TAI 16 requires proposals to form a reasonable extension to the settlement. It was noted that the site abuts the development boundary, the proposal involved erecting a new house in an open field with a new access track 40m away from the highway. I was reiterated that the boundary of the Bryn Llifon property (which is by the side of the new access) created a natural boundary for the village and that property was close to and faced the highway. As it was proposed to locate the house away from the highway and far behind the Bryn Llifon development line, it was considered that it did not follow the village's natural development pattern. Reference was also made to the plot at Mount Pleasant Terrace located away from the site and separated by an access track and garden areas with a variety of garden buildings such as sheds and garages. It was considered that the plot lies separate to the built form where the site would be visible from the proposed access, it was not considered that the dwelling would be seen in the same context as the terraced houses.

In the context of general and residential amenities, it was highlighted that the location of the house and the location of the windows had received full consideration when designing the property and there was no concern about the impact on neighbours. Attention was drawn to the need to acknowledge that there would be some impact on Bryn Llifon due to the location of the access and the track, as this proposal was small-scale and for only one residential dwelling, it was not considered that the level of traffic and disturbance would not have a substantial damaging detrimental impact on the amenities of Bryn Llifon. It was noted that the access had been designed to a standard and that the Transportation Unit had no concerns.

It was reported that linguistic, biodiversity and infrastructure matters had received full attention, and it was considered that the proposal met with the relevant policies. However, the Planning Services recommended that the application should be refused as the proposal was not considered to form a reasonable extension to the settlement.

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

· Her husband would be the 6th generation of his family to live in Carmel.

· The land had been for sale and they had therefore taken the opportunity to buy it. This had given them hope to stay in the local area.

· They had received approval from Tai Teg.

· There had been no change in two years - and despite the term 'affordable' the costs of undertaking surveys to get an affordable dwelling were not so.

· That the Local Development Plan (LDP) stated 12 houses for Carmel over the Plan's period - only 2 houses had been built.

· They were contributing to the local economy and worked in the local area.

· There was sufficient information here to justify a house for a young local family.

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

· Affordable housing was required for local people - rural communities were suffering.

· The young couple's roots were in the area and they wished to establish a home in the area.

· They had received approval from Tai Teg.

· This design was for a single-storey dwelling, that would be sunk low into the landscape to reduce its impact.

· That the size was acceptable and was a good example of an affordable dwelling.

· No objections had been received, particularly from local residents.

· The Community Council was supportive.

· The local member supported the application and welcomed similar applications to keep Carmel viable.

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

Reasons:

· That the extension to the settlement was reasonable

· The need for an affordable dwelling had been proven.

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

· Given, the full picture, the application was acceptable.

· Not many opportunities arose for local people.

· It did not appear to be intrusive.

· The need for affordable housing had been proven.