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: To refuse, contrary to the recommendation.

 

REASON: Application is contrary to PS1 – significant harm to the Welsh language

 

         Full application to construct 18 affordable houses with associated developments

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form that included a summary of observations received by Botwnnog Community Council and on behalf of the Perthyn Project; a recent appeal decision in Anglesey (which has the same planning policies as Gwynedd), where the appeal was upheld, with costs against the Council for unreasonable conduct; information and evidence from Adra shows that the percentage of main tenants in new housing developments who speak Welsh is on average higher than the percentage of Welsh speakers in Gwynedd and that similar developments, overall, have a positive impact on the Welsh language.

 

a)     The Assistant Head of Planning and Environment highlighted that the intention of the Committee on 9 May was to refuse the application contrary to the recommendation for reasons relating to a negative impact on the Welsh language and lack of need for affordable housing within the Botwnnog ward. With a substantial risk to the Council over refusing the application, the application was referred to a cooling off period. The context of the planning policy, the potential risks to the Council and options for the Committee before making a final decision on the application were reported on.

 

It was explained that this was an application for 18 affordable homes to be built on a site specifically designated for housing, within the development boundary of Botwnnog Service Village, as defined in the Local Development Plan (LDP). It was reiterated, since reporting to the Committee last time, additional information has been submitted by the applicant responding to two reasons given for refusing. The information stated that:

-        Botwnnog's status as a settlement in the LDP meant that there was no need to prove that the local need had been restricted to the Botwnnog ward, instead that there was an expectation for the settlement to welcome the area's wider need; that the scale of the development was appropriate and complied with Botwnnog's status as a Service Village; that recent statistics from the Council's Strategic Housing Unit proved the need for affordable housing in the County and the mix of houses proposed reflected that need; that plans like these were key to supporting the Welsh language and responded to the housing crisis in Gwynedd. It was considered that lack of evidence had been offered to defend the reason for refusal.

 

-        In the planning policy context, it was noted that the statutory requirement was that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the adopted plan (LDP), unless a relevant planning consideration states otherwise. Attention was drawn to a full list of the relevant planning policies and specifically to the planning policies relating to the two reasons of refusal given by the Committee. It was reiterated that consideration to the Welsh language was central to the LDP's Strategy, as a way of contributing to maintaining and creating Welsh communities, and that had been a consideration when designating sites for housing developments in the Plan area. It was emphasised that the strategy recognised the role and status of each settlement in the Plan area and Botwnnog was recognised as a Service Village. Botwnnog would be the only Service Village in Pen Llŷn to serve a wide rural area with an important status and role in the area. In accordance with the requirements of the Planning Policy, the new houses would greet the housing needs of the residents of the whole of Gwynedd and not only the housing needs of Botwnnog ward.

 

It was noted that Policy PS17 related to the settlement strategy and outlined how housing developments should be dispersed in appropriate locations across the Plan area. The expectation was that Service Villages such as Botwnnog, got a higher level of new housing, if they were to remain sustainable, acknowledging that Service Villages had a higher level of facilities and services than the more remote villages; That Policy PS1 directly related to the Welsh language, and the application had submitted a Welsh Language Statement (which went beyond the requirement with housing developments on designated sites). Reference was made to evidence submitted to the Committee on 9 September which confirmed that no evidence had been submitted to show that the proposal would have a substantial impact on the Welsh language.

 

Reference was made to a recent appeal decision in Anglesey for 33 affordable homes, on a windfall site outside the development boundary, with the main issues relating to the Welsh language and issues of need. It was determined based on the same planning policies as Gwynedd and was therefore relevant to consider. When reaching his decision, the Inspector referred to the Supplementary Planning Guidance which related to the Welsh language, noting, "the land use planning system cannot predict or control the personal characteristics of the owners of new homes"... "Nevertheless, providing adequate local housing at an appropriate scale and size, and for a mix of households, is an important factor in terms of the viability of the language, e.g., when retaining individuals who use the language".

 

Considering the need for housing, it was emphasised that the site had been designated for housing in the LDP, and therefore the principle of housing on the site had already been established. It was noted that the application complied with housing policies, namely policies TAI 3, TAI 8, TAI 15 and Strategic Policy 18 because; there was capacity within the indicative housing supply in Botwnnog; the density was appropriate and the design of a high standard; evidence had been submitted which clearly showed that the housing mix proposed met the need. In addition, it was noted that the need for housing in Gwynedd had been proven in the current evidence provided by the Council’s Strategic Housing Unit which confirmed, for Gwynedd, that 2374 were waiting for social properties on the Housing Options Register and 882 had been registered with Tai Teg for intermediate properties; there were 34 families on the social housing register and 14 on the Tai Teg register in the Botwnnog Community Council area (the Council and Tai Teg’s housing registers were acknowledged as reliable evidence to prove the need and was confirmed by the Inspector in the appeal decision for the affordable housing scheme in Anglesey).

 

It was explained that the recommendation to approve the application was based on robust evidence which showed that the application complied with the LDP – no evidence had been submitted to justify refusing the application and, therefore, if there would be an appeal against the decision to refuse, and the appeal was upheld, there would be costs against the Council (Isle of Anglesey Council had to pay costs of over £16,000). A decision to refuse the application would undermine the Council’s planning policies.

 

It was also explained that if the decision was to refuse the application,  the proposer and the seconder will be expected to lead the defence of any appeal against the Committee's decision.

 

The Assistant Head highlighted that the Committee had two options:

 

1.     To approve the application considering the information in the reports which included robust evidence that the application complied with the LDP.

2.     Refuse the application for reasons relating to the Welsh language and the lack of need within the Botwnnog ward for affordable housing. The Members were reminded that the risks associated with this decision had already been highlighted. Should the decision be to refuse the application, the proposer and the seconder would be required to defend the decision in any appeal.

 

The Assistant Head recommended that the Committee approved the application subject to imposing the planning conditions listed in the report. Reference was also made to the condition relating to affordable housing and the information that would need to be submitted before any development commenced.

 

b)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following comments:

·       That he was disappointed that there was no adaptation to the application as a result of local people's concerns

·       That the field was small for 18 houses in the middle of Botwnnog

·       Approving 18 houses would mean an increase of 25% in the size of the village, although the Local Planning Authority Officers considered this as an over-development

·       The report did not set a current picture of the need - there were only 4 families on the waiting list for a house in Botwnnog

·       Referring to 'lack of housing locally' - this was the whole of Gwynedd and not Botwnnog

·       That the LDP was faulty - needed to be disposed.

·       That houses needed to be raised where the need was located

·       In the context of PS1, that it was essential to look at each application on its own merits

·       That the Language Commissioner had highlighted the need for a comprehensive impact assessment of the LDP as there was failure to comply with planning policies

·       That there was a duty on the Members to protect the Welsh language. The village of Botwnnog was a Welsh village with 70% of the population speaking Welsh - the village was within the boundaries of the Pen Llŷn Area of Linguistic Significance (higher density)

·       Grŵp Barcud (Mid and West Wales Region) - they had a policy which imposed a priority for local people who had a 10-year connection to the area and was being assessed if they could speak Welsh. Why was there no similar policy from Gwynedd?

·       That the Members had a right to refuse the application and that there was no need to have guidance from Officers; That they had a statutory duty to refuse - valid and fair reasons had been submitted. The application was contrary to policy PS1 - creating a negative impact on the Welsh language.

 

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

Reason: that it was contrary to policy PS1 - significant harm to the Welsh language.

 

The proposer noted, based on new evidence received, that the officers' recommendation was contrary to PS1. Attention was drawn to statistics from 'Output AREA' census maps which highlighted that the percentage of people who spoke Welsh in Botwnnog was 84.7%, compared to Rhiw (89%), Abersoch (69%) and Llanbedrog (44%) - was there an intention to draft people to Botwnnog? He reiterated that he was disappointed in the content of the Anglesey appeal example, because 'harm to the language' was the third reason for refusing that application and that there were no direct costs to this refusal reason. He highlighted that Botwnnog Community Council had highlighted a lack of confidence in Cyngor Gwynedd's Planning Department as a result of their unwillingness that the Committee's original decision on 9 May stood, and that Botwnnog Community Council received support for their stance from other community councils in the area. The 'Cymraeg 2025': A million Welsh-speakers (the Welsh Government) strategy must be supported - there was no assurance from Adra that Welsh families would be living here and why does Cyngor Gwynedd not have a similar policy to Grŵp Barcud?

 

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

·       The Welsh language must be protected - the Council's ethos was to protect the language. We must be seen practising what we preach.

·       Following a site visit, the field appeared to be too small for 18 houses. Why squeeze houses here instead of spreading them across the area?

·       The development would change the character of the village

·       That the Committee had a right to refuse; they had an independent right to an opinion

·       That there was public and national interest in the application - no one was in favour of the plan locally

·       That there were grounds to the concerns of Botwnnog Community Council - attention must be given to their comments

·       'Golwg' article expressed that 'social housing harmed Welsh heartlands'... Botwnnog community must be protected, which was one of the most Welsh villages in Gwynedd. Welsh habitats must be protected - holiday homes were not the only threats to the language

·       Local people's voices must be listened to - they do not wish to see such a large development

·       The application was contrary to PS1. Although the applicant had submitted evidence that there would be no substantial harm to the Welsh language, the evidence was not strong evidence submitted by experts in the planning or language field.

 

·       The Council's policies must be adhered to

·       The land had been designated for the construction of 21 houses - as part of Cyngor Gwynedd's housing strategy. Had Botwnnog Community Council originally refused the designation?

·       The housing mix proposed here was good - was 100% affordable houses

·       There was no evidence to show that Welsh people would not move to the area

·       There was evidence of the local need - it would keep people local 'for them to live where they want to live'

·       That there were no planning grounds to refuse - the Inspector would certainly approve it if it went to an appeal

 

In response to a question regarding who commissioned the review of local housing needs by the Rural Housing Enabler, what was the cost of the work and whether the information / research was being ignored, considering that there was a substantial difference within a year in the data, the Assistant Head noted that the information was up-to-date and had been provided by Cyngor Gwynedd's Strategic Housing Unit. The information clearly highlighted, without a doubt, that there was an affordable housing need in Botwnnog and within the County.

 

The Planning Manager reiterated that it was not only individual social housing being proposed here. There were 12 Social Rent Units, with 4 of them for people aged over 55 years old only; 3 Intermediate Rent Units and 3 Intermediate Rent Units (with an option in the future to buy through Rent First). An affordable housing condition would be at the root of the development and there would be a need to agree on an allocation policy before commencing the work.

 

In response to the comments, the Monitoring Officer noted that the Committee Members had a statutory duty to determine and make a decision in accordance with the LDP, unless there was supporting evidence which noted the contrary. It was reiterated that the Planning Officers were not providing direction, but advice to the Members which corresponded to the Gwynedd housing allocation policy. A statement of opinion was not the expectation, but rather that evidence was being submitted with an appropriate reason for refusal - consistency must also be ensured with applicants.

 

It was proposed and seconded to undertake a registered vote.

 

          RESOLVED:

 

          To refuse the application, contrary to the recommendation.

 

          REASON: Application is contrary to PS1 – significant harm to the Welsh language

 

In accordance with the previous guidance, Councillor Gruffydd Williams (Proposer) and Councillor Louise Hughes (Seconder) will be expected to lead the defence of any appeal against the decision.

 

          RESULT OF THE REGISTERED VOTE:

 

In favour: (7)    Councillors Huw Rowlands, Gareth Jones, Delyth Lloyd Griffiths, Louise Hughes, John Pughe Roberts, Gareth Roberts and Gruffydd Williams

 

Abstentions: (0)

 

Against: (6)      Councillors Edgar Owen, Gareth Coj Parry, Huw Wyn Jones, Elwyn Edwards, John Pughe and Anne Lloyd Jones