Agenda item

Full application for the proposed erection of 18 no. affordable dwellings together with associated development

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth Williams

 

Link to relevant background documents

 

 

 

DECISION:

Referred to a cooling off period

Reasons:

·         Damaging impact on the Welsh language

·         The lack of need within the Botwnnog ward for affordable housing

 

Full application to construct 18 affordable houses with associated developments. 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form which referred to additional correspondence received raising concern about matters raised in the report.  ⁠ 

Some members visited the site on 16-07-24.   

a.              The Planning Manager highlighted that this was an application to erect 18 affordable dwellings offering bungalows, providing a new access off the main road that runs through the village, creation of landscaped areas, creation of open play areas, erection of boundary walls and fences and associated drainage work including a sustainable surface water drainage area.  

 

⁠In the context of the principle of the development, it was reported that the latest housing figures indicated that there was capacity within the indicative housing supply for the settlement. It was reported that the site was located within the development boundary and had been designated specifically for 21 units. It was explained that the proposal had been earmarked for a specific number of dwellings, justification was required for a smaller number. In the case of this application, the provision was smaller due to the need to provide a play area and open space and land to provide a sustainable land drainage system and therefore it was considered that there was justification for a smaller number of dwellings.  

 

Although objections had been received on the grounds of over development, given that the application was for a smaller number than had been designated, the intention was to have 100% affordable dwellings, that the floor area of the houses would be restricted to affordable housing standards, that there was a provision for open spaces within the site, it was not considered that there was any evidence of over development.    

 

It was reiterated in accordance with Policy TAI 8 statements and the evidence received noting the reasoning behind the housing mix proposed together with confirmation from the Housing Strategic Unit, that the houses would contribute directly to the aim of Cyngor Gwynedd's Housing Action Plan to provide more houses to meet the existing high demand in the county, whilst also noting that the plan offered a good mix of houses. 

 

⁠It was noted that the LDP recognised the village of Botwnnog as a Service Village and he Affordable Housing SPG noted that 'local' refers to a 5-year connection with the relevant Authority where the application is located. Therefore, this means the entire Gwynedd planning area.  It was stated that many observations had been received questioning the need for the number of houses, and the type of housing, however it was explained that the status of Botwnnog in the LDP meant that new houses were to serve Gwynedd as a whole was what was expected for this site.  ⁠Reference was made to the Strategic Housing Unit's figures stating that 2374 applicants had registered on the Housing Options register for social housing, with 882 applicants registered with Tai Teg for an Intermediate property and although some applicants could appear on both registers, the figures were proof of the undisputed need for affordable housing in the Gwynedd planning area.    

 

In the context of Policy TAI 15 a minimum of affordable housing was required; however the policy did not prohibit a higher provision. As there was strong evidence of the need for affordable housing, there was no policy reason to object to the proposal of providing 100% affordable housing.  

 

In accordance with the requirements of PS 1, a report was received in the form of a Community and Linguistic Statement which concluded that the proposed development would have a small impact on the Welsh language and community, but that it was unlikely to lead to any harm due to the size of the development and the proposal was to provide affordable housing for local need. 

 

After issuing the late observations form to the committee, further observations had been received noting that discussions were continuing with the developer to develop a specific allocations policy for this site and there was also reference to this in correspondence from the agent. ⁠It was explained that the Council's Housing Allocation Policy was a matter beyond the planning application and the Planning Committee could not change the policy.  It was noted that this was not a valid reason to refuse permission or to revoke the decision, however, this could not prevent discussions from continuing outside the planning process. Policy PS 1 only permitted proposals to be refused should they cause significant harm, and although observations had been received, no robust evidence had been received to prove that the development would cause significant harm to the language or the community.  

 

In the context of general and residential amenities, it was considered that the houses had been designed to a quality standard which would be in-keeping with the feel of the village and would not have a detrimental impact on neighbours' residential amenities.  It was noted that an element of the proposal involving the elevations facing the public highway had been amended, to ensure that the form and setting of the houses reflect better and offer a more welcoming picture. The proposal would also include provision of open spaces with a means to impose a condition to ensure the play equipment provision. 

 

⁠Attention was drawn to the concerns received regarding the capacity of local schools to cope with the proposal, however it was pointed out that there was sufficient capacity in the schools and therefore there were no grounds to request a contribution towards improvements or as a reason to refuse the application. It was also highlighted that concerns had been received about the capacity of the local surgery. It was explained that a letter had been addressed to the Local Health Authority and to the GP's Surgery in Botwnnog, but no response had been received.  It was reiterated during the process of designating the site, that the Health Board had been consulted and no objection had been received to the proposal then either. Given that no robust evidence had been received regarding capacity and infrastructure matters, there was no justification to refuse the application or to ask for a financial contribution from the developer under ISA 1.  

 

It was noted that transportation, archaeological, biodiversity, flooding and infrastructure matters had been fully considered. It was considered that the proposal met the relevant policies and it was recommended to approve the application.  

 

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

·                That Local Authority officers supported the scheme and had considered all the matters in detail.   

·                The proposal offered a 100% affordable development on a piece of land that had been earmarked within the LDP - this was much more than the required 10%.    

·                The development would provide 18 affordable homes with a mix of bungalows and 2- and 3-bedroom houses.  

·                The development would offer different affordable tenures in response to local demand, be they individuals or families.  

·                There was local objection on the grounds that an affordable housing development of this scale was not needed, and the Community Council referred to the 2022 Survey of Housing Needs. The need had increased further since then, with current data indicating that the local need was significantly more than the size of this proposal.  

·                The LDP had noted Botwnnog as a Service Village, serving the wider community.  As a result, consideration should be given not only to the demand for housing in Botwnnog, but for the demand for housing in the communities and the wards surrounding the development.  

·                The Housing Strategy Unit supported the plan.   

·                The adopted LDP noted that there was a clear need for affordable housing provision in service villages, such as Botwnnog. Consequently, there was no requirement to prove the need as it had already been proven when the land was earmarked within the LDP. Therefore, the local need for this scheme was clear. 

·                In considering the concerns about the Welsh language, it was evident that the level of local demand for affordable housing was high and therefore the scheme would be occupied by local people. They will have the same language characteristics as the local population as they would already be living in the area. Therefore, the impact on the Welsh language would be comparatively little, if at all, and it would not be sufficient to harm the area.  ⁠Officers from the Local Planning Authority had accepted this and were satisfied with the plan.   

·                That providing such affordable developments was key to ensuring that local residents were able to stay in their communities rather than having to leave the area to find suitable housing.   

·                ⁠Should the Committee decide to approve the application, Adra had offered to undertake discussions with the Local Authority and Cyngor Gwynedd to agree on a local allocations policy for the homes. This was beyond policy requirements and was a reflection of their commitment to respect the area's special features.   

·                While there was an objection that the scheme was an over development, it was clear that it had been planned well, including an extensive open space and a suitable density. Indeed, the scheme proposed three fewer properties than the number noted in the LDP, specifically to ensure the site's suitability and its context. 

·                In terms of the concerns regarding the capacity of the sewerage system, highway safety, and the capacity of the schools, Welsh Water, the Authority’s Highways and Education Departments were satisfied and were in favour of the plan. Therefore, there were no grounds to object the plan on these points.  

·                ⁠All in all, the proposal before them complied in full with the LDP, and following detailed consideration, the Local Authority officers fully supported the plan. There were no robust grounds to divert from their professional advice.  

·                The development was for 100% affordable housing on a designated site and would make a significant local contribution to address the housing crisis.   

·                The members were asked to support the application in accordance with the officers' advice. 

 

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

·                That everyone in the local community had highlighted their objections/ concerns regarding the plan.  

·                This was an application for 18 houses in a small field in the centre of the village of Botwnnog.  

·                There was a social housing estate already in the village and an extension to that estate had been refused.   

·                Such a development would change Botwnnog. 

·                There was a lack of housing need - Tai Teg facilitators had proven this by noting that only four families had chosen the village as their chosen area, but not their first choice.  

·                A house had recently been empty and social media had to be used to try and find a family as no one needed it - this was proof of the lack of need in the area.  

·                The price of a house in Botwnnog was at least £300k - there was no hope for young families to buy a house here and therefore they left the area. This was the crisis and 18 rental houses was not the right solution.  

·                That the site was ideal for housing that would improve the community without a detrimental impact.  

·                Botwnnog was a Welsh speaking community and therefore there was a need to ensure that the language was protected.  

·                Llanllechid Community Council had been in contact to advise Botwnnog Community Council to push against this proposal as a similar application in Dyffryn Ogwen had been approved and had destroyed the community.  

·                Adra is a business. This was a financial application without any consideration about the impact on the Welsh language and Welsh speaking communities.  ⁠Getting their rent was all that mattered to them. 

·                There was a recent application in Aberdaron where the construction of five houses would have a ‘significant detrimental impact on the community' and it was ironic that this proposal was acceptable.  

·                The proposal would be ideal for affordable dwellings for local people to buy - this was supported. 

·                There were 70 houses in the village.  Another 18 would be an increase of 25% - this would be an over development.  

·                Should this be approved, then 35% of the whole village would be rented property. 

·                The application was unnecessary and had no character.  There was a plea to the Committee to refuse the application. 

 

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

Reason:  No local need. 

 

In response to the reason for refusal, the Assistant Head of Planning noted that the reason was a valid planning reason for refusal, however, there was robust and sufficient evidence that clearly reflected the need. 

 

d.              During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by Members: 

·                Following a site visit, the field appeared to be small for 18 houses.  

·                That the development appeared to be large for a small village - it would affect the character of the village.   

·                The houses had been placed too close together - this would certainly cause stress.  

·                There was no local demand for the houses. 

·                The construction of these 18 houses was a major development. There were strong local concerns about the development and the impact on the Welsh language - it would harm the community - this was contrary to Policy PS1 'significant harm to communities'.  

·                Although the need to adhere to policies was appreciated, the committee had a responsibility to acknowledge that the housing situation had changed during the LDP's period. Would it be possible to consider phased construction or adapt the development to better suit the village?  ⁠ ⁠ 

·                Would it be possible to consider that the site was for the 'Botwnnog local community' and not the 'local Gwynedd community'?  

·                There was clear and strong local objection to the application - this was unusual. 

·                It was accepted that there may be a need for a social housing estate in towns, but this was not so in villages.   

·                There was a need to secure the continuation and prosperity of Welsh speaking communities. The area had a linguistic significance - this needed to be protected.  This was proposed as another basis to refuse the application.  

 

·                There was a need to adhere to the Council's policies - the LDP had identified the site as being suitable for 21 houses.  

·                The application responded to the housing crisis. People really needed housing in Gwynedd.  Should this be refused, then the application would go to appeal. The appeal was likely to approve the application as it was in compliance with local policies. The Committee's role was to adhere to its Policies.  

·                It appeared that different figures had been shared that were misleading.  Clarity and assurance were required on the number who needed a house - it was proposed to defer the decision in order to get the correct figures.  

·                It would be difficult to refuse affordable housing.  

·                A clear definition was required of the meaning of 'local' in this context.  

 

dd)     In response to the proposal to defer to receive the correct figures, the Head of Legal Services noted that the information in the report was sufficient. Botwnnog was a Local Service Village and therefore the figures reflected the County's need. The Assistant Head of the Environment Department added that the information in the report confirmed the need and there was no certainty regarding what other information was available.  

 

In response, the Member noted that she could see two sides to the figures and she needed certainty, but she accepted the explanation and withdrew her proposal.  

 

In response to the observations in the discussion, the Assistant Head of the Environment Department stated that the officers' report was very detailed and included evidence of the serious need for affordable housing. He noted that the Committee had approved similar developments, and the role of these developments was to address the need for affordable housing in the County.  Considering the site for the 'local Botwnnog community' and not the 'local Gwynedd community' would deprive people of housing and would restrict those who were eligible.  He added that the site was a designated in the LDP and therefore the principle was acceptable.  He highlighted that Committee Members had a statutory responsibility to support the LDP decisions. 

 

Since the land was designated in the LDP, should the application go to appeal, there would be significant costs to the Council as the Local Planning Authority would not be able to support the refusal reason.  Should the application be refused on the grounds of 'no need' and the report gave clear evidence that there 'was a need', then he would refer the application to a cooling-off period.   

 

In response to the additional refusal reason by the proposer to refuse on the grounds of the detrimental impact on the Welsh language, confirmation was received from the seconder that he was happy to be a seconder to the second refusal reason.  

 

e.              It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application. 

Reasons:  

·           Detrimental impact on the Welsh language 

·           No local need 

 

In response to the result of the vote to refuse the application, the Assistant Head of the Environment Department noted that he would have to refer the application to a cooling-off period. 

 

DECISION:

Referred to a cooling off period

Reasons:

·       Damaging impact on the Welsh language

·       The lack of need within the Botwnnog ward for affordable housing