Agenda item

Erection of one affordable dwelling with associated access, parking and landscaping (revised scheme).

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Craig ab Iago

 

Link to relevant background documents

 

 

DECISION: To refuse, in line with the recommendation

 

Reasons:

1.     The proposal is not appropriate as a logical extension to the settlement because of its location and the current boundaries that separate the settlement from the countryside in this location. The development is therefore contrary to the requirements of policies PCYFF 1, TAI 15 and 16 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Affordable Housing which ensure suitable affordable housing developments as an exception on the peripheries of development boundaries.

2.     The local need for a self-built affordable house has not been proved. The size of the proposed property and curtilage is too large to enable the property to be affordable in the future and comply with the scale of development density. The development is therefore contrary to the requirements of policies TAI 15, TAI 16 and PCYFF 2 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Affordable Housing which ensure development of an acceptable scale which would be affordable in future.

3.     The development is tantamount to erecting a new house in open countryside without any justification and is contrary to the requirements of policies PCYFF 1 and paragraph 6.4.36 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026 and Technical Advice Note 6: Planning for sustainable rural communities.

Application for erecting an affordable dwelling with access, parking and associated landscaping (amended plan).

 

a)           The Planning Manager highlighted that this was a full application for the erection of one affordable two-bedroom house with access and parking on a site situated within an agricultural field on the outskirts of Penygroes.

 

It was explained that a decision on the application, at the January 2024 committee, had been deferred in order to receive written evidence of the applicant's position with Tai Teg, together with confirmation that the applicant was eligible for a self-built affordable house. It was added that the deferral had been a fair opportunity for the applicant to also consider reducing the size of the house's surface area and the size of the plot.

 

It was reported that several attempts had been made by officers to seek information, but there had been no progress with the request. With almost a year and a half having elapsed, it was decided to bring the application back to committee for a decision.

 

The reasons for refusal were highlighted, explaining that one reason related to the location of the site - a site which was located on the outskirts and outside the development boundary of the village of Penygroes. It was noted that with the development boundary located on the boundary of the Glaslyn property with a public footpath situated between the Glaslyn property and the application site, this meant that the site did not adjoin the development boundary and therefore failed to comply with the requirements of the TAI 16 policy as an exception site for an affordable unit. In addition, this meant that the site was in the open countryside, with no justification or need proved.

 

The reason for refusal was cited, relating to the size of the property and the curtilage which was too large to enable the property to be affordable in the future and comply with the scale of development density. It was added, again, that the local need for a self-built affordable house had not been proved.

 

It was considered that the applicant had had sufficient time to modify the application and despite the attempts of officers to receive information, it was reported that there had been no progress.

        

         The officers recommended that the application be refused.

 

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

 

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

·        The application was submitted to the Committee at the Local Member's request, but the Local Member was not present

·        The site was outside the development boundary

·        Tai Teg had refused the application

·        This was the third time the application has been discussed at the committee

·        A request for information had been made, but there was no change in the situation

·        Consistency needed to be ensured

·        There was a lack of contact from the applicant

 

·        In the context of size – was it really bigger than an affordable house? Local people didn't want to live in boxes!

·        The site seemed to 'adjoin' the boundary and was close to other houses

·        Insufficient evidence not to approve

In response to a question about a specific reason for the delay, the Planning Manager noted that initial meetings had been held with the agent, but no information had been received despite the promises. It was added that Tai Teg had also contacted the applicant directly to discuss the justification for the need, but again, no response had been received.

 

In response to the comments, the Assistant Head noted that eighteen months ago the committee had asked the applicant for more information but as no information had been received, the recommendation was to refuse. He added that when considering the size, consideration had to be given to whether it was 'affordable in perpetuity' and from the point of view of plot size, that there was sufficient space for three dwellings. He noted that since no evidence had been presented, the application was contrary to local and national policies.

 

RESOLVED: To refuse the application

 

Reasons:

 

1.     The proposal is not appropriate as a logical extension to the settlement because of its location and the current boundaries that separate the settlement from the countryside in this location. The development is therefore contrary to the requirements of policies PCYFF 1, TAI 15 and 16 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Affordable Housing which ensure suitable affordable housing developments as an exception on the peripheries of development boundaries.

 

2.     The local need for a self-built affordable house has not been proved. The size of the proposed property and curtilage is too large to enable the property to be affordable in the future and comply with the scale of development density. The development is therefore contrary to the requirements of policies TAI 15, TAI 16 and PCYFF 2 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Affordable Housing which ensure development on an acceptable scale which would be affordable in future.

 

3.     The development is tantamount to erecting a new house in open countryside without any justification and is contrary to the requirements of policies PCYFF 1 and paragraph 6.4.36 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026 and Technical Advice Note 6: Planning for sustainable rural communities.