Agenda item

Erection of residential dwelling houses including access 

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Elin Hywel

 

Link to relevant background documents

 

DECISION:  TO REFUSE, contrary to the recommendation

 

Reasons: Lack of affordable housing, lack of information about the housing mix, balance and language matters.

 

THE APPLICATION WILL BE REFERRED TO A COOLING OFF PERIOD

 

 

Land off Caernarfon Road, Western Plot, Pwllheli, LL53 5LF

 

Construction of residential dwelling-houses including access

 

a)    The Planning Manager highlighted that this was an outline case to construct 12 residential dwellings in Pwllheli on a plot of land between Glan y Don garage and Aldi supermarket. ⁠ It was explained, although detailed plans and landscaping were not part of the application, that there was a need to consider the principle of the proposal, as well as the access details. Should the application be successful, the applicant would need to submit another application to agree on the reserved matters.

 

In terms of the principle of the proposal, it was considered that developing houses on the site was acceptable as the land was within the development boundary of Pwllheli and had been earmarked for residential development within the LDP. It was considered that the proposed development density was acceptable given the levels of the site, the need to protect biodiversity and the need to provide a sustainable drainage system and an open play area.

 

Reference was made to the Pwllheli housing figures, explaining that the proposal was acceptable due to the designation of the site for houses where there is an expectation of 150 new houses, although accepting that 150 would not be possible due to the physical restrictions of the site and the presence of the Aldi supermarket. It was expressed that Policy TAI 15 required an affordable housing contribution on residential developments of two or more units (a 30% contribution is required for Pwllheli), but it was highlighted that the application did not offer any affordable units. It was reported that the Aldi supermarket application had been approved on the site as it was unviable to construct houses there, and although some infrastructure improvement work had improved the situation, evidence in the viability assessment highlighted that it was unviable to provide affordable housing.

 

It was elaborated, having assessed the information of the viability assessment submitted with the application in accordance with the requirements of the criteria of policy TAI 15, there were no grounds to object to the figures or the conclusion of not offering affordable housing. As a result, it was considered that a lack of provision of affordable housing was not a valid reason to refuse the application. Reference was also made to the proposal to impose a condition to ensure C3 use of the units to ensure that they were all dwellings used as sole or primary residences - the proposal would not provide second homes, holiday homes or additional holiday units in the area.

 

Despite realising either way that there was no guarantee that the houses would be occupied by Welsh-speaking families, it was considered, with the houses being permanent houses, that the families that would likely occupy the houses would be integrated into the local community with any children attending local schools which provide education through the medium of Welsh. It was elaborated that there was sufficient capacity within local schools to cope with any additional children that would live in the houses. It was noted that the Language Statement submitted with the application noted that there would be a Welsh name for the houses and there was an intention to use bilingual signs and advertising - this could be conditioned.

 

In terms of visual impact, it was explained that the site was located in a dip which was now on a piece of land between existing businesses and an area where various housing uses were seen; consequently, it was considered that dwellings in this location would not look out of place. In addition, due to the location of the site in relation to other houses in the area, as well as the land levels, it would be unlikely for the development to impact residential amenities. Reference was made to the impact of other developments, as well as the impact of the road on occupants of the new houses in terms of noise and disturbance, and it was reiterated that the Public Protection Unit was happy to impose conditions to protect the amenities of the houses' residents given the noise assessment received as part of the application. It was also noted that conditions could be imposed to ensure a safe access, archaeological investigations, biodiversity improvement and mitigation measures and a land drainage plan.

 

The officers recommended to approve the application with conditions.

 

b)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following points:

·      An outline application was in question to determine the principle of the proposal and the access

·      Indicative details had been included

·      The site was designated for housing. Although the entire site originally for housing was unviable, approving the Aldi application has ensured infrastructure and access

·      12 houses were part of the application

·      The houses were for C3 use = main residence use

·      Viability studies had been completed - it was not possible to include affordable housing in the plan

·      The site was designated for 150 houses, with 36 by now likely to be developed (application 5.1 and 5.2); a language assessment was conducted for the 150 and it was concluded that there was 'no impact'

·      14 affordable houses had been constructed on the Cae Hoci site which took Pwllheli's figures for affordable housing beyond the requirements of the LDP

 

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

·      Despite being an application for 12 houses - no affordable housing was included in the plan

·      Accepted that construction sites were rare given the landscape, the sea and the possibility of flooding and welcomed the efforts of developers to develop houses to respond to the demand

·      There were 60 Tai Teg applications in Pwllheli

·      Extreme disappointment that no affordable housing had been included in the proposal and the proposed housing was out of reach of the affordability of local people

·      Should the application be approved, there was concern that there would be no control over the type of houses constructed

·      The Aldi application had been approved to ensure infrastructure to construct houses, but the proposal remained unviable for affordable housing

·      Pwllheli was a strong community, had revisited its culture and the town was developing

·      The houses (at both sites) would have an impact on local people, the community and the Welsh language

·      Despite the demand for housing, these houses were wrong. They did not benefit the area or the Pwllheli community

·      Unable to support the application as it did not include affordable housing

 

ch)     It was proposed and seconded to defer the application to receive more information:

 

-       Inadequate language statement. Only one statement had been submitted for both applications - application number C23/0671/45/AM (Caernarfon Road, Western Plot) and application C23/0673/45/AM (Caernarfon Road, Eastern Plot)

-       Needed to consider having affordable housing as part of the plan

 

In response to the proposal, the Assistant Head of Department noted that officers had addressed all the relevant matters but had expressed willingness to consider the viability element although no further evidence was available.

 

A vote was taken on the proposal. The proposal fell.

 

d)    It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application

 

Reasons:

·         The application was contrary to policy PS1 - no proof that there would be no detrimental impact on the Welsh language - difficult to do that without knowing the number and size of the houses

·         Contrary to policy TAI 15 - that 30% of new houses in Pwllheli should be affordable housing. Accepted that the viability matter was the reason, the original site was supposed to offer 45 affordable houses. None was proposed now

·         Contrary to policy PCYFF 2 point 3 - make the best use of land. A very low number of houses was proposed here

·         Contrary to policy TAI 8 - housing balance - every new development was required to contribute towards improving the housing balance, e.g. provide as much affordable housing as possible

 

dd)     During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by Members:

·      Accepted the explanation for the failure to comply, but surely it would be possible to comply with some of the policies.

·      The Planning Policy Unit had asked many questions that had not been answered - felt like a rushed application which had not been completed properly.

·      In the context of the size limits of the houses, the applicant's viability report assumed that the size of each unit on average would be 1000 square metres, and they could be sold for £260 per square foot which resulted in a figure of £260,000 for each unit. 1000 feet equated to 92m², which was smaller than the size of housing associations' three-bedroom houses!  

·      The smallest bungalow was 1399ft² which was clearly more than 1000ft², and therefore the estimated value would be £363,000. The largest bungalow was 2195ft² and would therefore sell for £570,710. These would not be houses for local people, but essentially, even with the C3 restriction, these would be houses and bungalows for older people to retire to Pwllheli.

·      It was very difficult to try to see what exactly this proposal was, therefore there was a need to refuse the outline application and ask for a more detailed application which included the size and balance of houses.

·      Important to try to get some affordable housing as part of the plan.

 

In response to the observations, the Assistant Head of Department noted, should the application be refused, it would have to be referred to a cooling off period. He elaborated that he had to highlight the risk to the Council of appeal against the decision to refuse.

 

DECISION: TO REFUSE, contrary to the recommendation

 

Reasons: Lack of affordable housing, lack of information about the housing mix, balance and language matters.

 

THE APPLICATION WILL BE REFERRED TO A COOLING OFF PERIOD