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, Eastern Plot, Pwllheli, LL53 5LF

 

    Construction of residential dwelling-houses including access

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form which concluded that it was possible to impose conditions to ensure archaeological investigations, biodiversity enhancements and mitigation measures and a land drainage plan.

 

a)    ⁠The Planning Manager highlighted that this was an outline application for a residential development of 24 houses in Pwllheli on a plot of land to the east of the Aldi supermarket site. 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 was 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 the development was unviable even without provision of 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 and the fact that the development as a whole was unviable was not a reason to refuse the application because the action of any permission was a matter for the developer. 

 

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. Although no affordable housing would be provided as part of the application it could at least be ensured that 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 near the Aldi supermarket with houses within close vicinity and therefore formed a logical extension to the settlement - it was therefore not considered that the dwellings would 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 noted that the details of the access were in accordance with the details approved as part of the Aldi application and the Transportation Unit was eager to impose conditions to ensure that the work was completed. It was elaborated that it would then be a requirement for the applicant to commit to the Section 278 agreement with the Council to include matters such as reviewing the speed limit, introducing street lighting, construction of cycle path/footways, installing bus stops and crossings.

 

The officers recommended to approve the application with conditions.

 

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

·         The application was considered in parallel with application 5.1 (application number C23/0671/45AM - land off Caernarfon Road, Western Plot, Pwllheli, LL53 5LF)

·         The proposal would have an impact on the Welsh language

·         The prices of the houses were out of local people's reach - it attracted people from outside the area who would find it difficult to integrate with the local community

·         Pwllheli truly needed houses, but this type of housing was wrong - it created a negative impact on the community

 

c)    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

 

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

·         The officers' report explained why the application should be approved

·         The application was for housing use C3

·         Who was to say that local people did not want to move there?

 

·         Concern that the houses would possibly be houses for retired people

·         The price was out of reach of local people

·         The proposal does not include affordable housing

·         No one was against a housing development, but there was concern that there was insufficient information about the type of housing which would be constructed on the site - it would therefore be beneficial to receive a detailed plan and consider affordable housing as part of that plan.

 

d)    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.

 

dd) In response to a question regarding the cooling off period and whether the applicant would be allowed to submit new plans, it was noted that it would be a matter for the applicant to submit further information. He elaborated that anyone had a right to submit an outline application, but this was not the case for a detailed one.

 

            RESOLVED: 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