Agenda item

Erection of 25 affordable dwellings, creation of new vehicular access from the B4354, together with associated works

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Rhys Tudur

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To refuse the application contrary to the recommendation

 

Reason:  On the basis of a lack of need for the affordable housing located on the part of the site that forms an exception site

 

As a result, the application will be referred to a cooling off period and will return to the Committee on another date with a report highlighting risks arising from this reason for refusal and the reasons noted by the Local Member during the Committee.

 

Land adjacent to Brynhyfryd / Cae Capel, Chwilog, LL53 6SF

 

Erection of 25 affordable houses, creation of new vehicular access off the B4354 as well as associated work

 

a)           The Planning Manager highlighted that most of the area of this full application was within a site which had been accepted and earmarked as suitable for residential development by means of its designation in the LDP for this specific proposal. It was noted that the status of Chwilog (a village defined as a Service Village within the LDP) meant that new houses to serve Gwynedd as a whole was expected for this site as in other similar cases on designated sites throughout the County. Attention was drawn to the fact that a section in the north-west of the site was outside the designation of the development boundary itself and therefore, this section was considered as an exception site. 

 

It was explained that the class 2 public road B4354 ran parallel with the northern boundary of the site; there were residential homes directly abutting the eastern boundary of the site, and residential homes on the other side of the road to the north. It was noted that the section of the site outside the boundary abutted the north-western part of the main site and currently formed part of the curtilage of the adjacent residential property - Brynhyfryd Farm.

 

The proposal, specifically, would include 6 one-bedroom flats, 9 two-bedroom houses, 8 three-bedroom houses and 2 two-bedroom bungalows - the proposed development offered 100% affordable housing with a mix provided in terms of occupancy. In terms of appearance, the houses would be finished in a mix of materials to convey different styles and to vary the appearance on the site.

 

It was reported that the Planning Committee had already approved the principle of a residential development on this designated site on three past occasions, and it was highlighted that the policy considerations made on two previous applications remained the same - it was considered that there was justification and demand for the proposal, and it continued to address the needs of the local community. Information was submitted as part of this application from the Housing Strategic Unit clearly showing the demand.

 

In terms of the land outside the development boundary and the designation that formed the exception site, it was explained that the requirements of policy TAI 16 applied to this element of placing four houses in this part of the site (2 three-bedroom houses, 1 two-bedroom house and 1 two-bedroom bungalow). In terms of considering the demand for the four houses, it was elaborated that the local definition included the village of Chwilog itself as well as the nearby rural area (a distance of 6km from the application site and the entire area of any Community Council divided by the 6km distance, excluding property within the development boundary of any settlement, except for the settlement where the application is located). It was highlighted that information on the need for affordable housing had been submitted as a part of the planning application and they would be provided as housing on intermediate and social rent - there would be 2 two-bedroom units for social rent for the local demand in Chwilog.

 

It was noted that figures on the need for Chwilog (social rent), indicated that some have a local connection and there were seven on the list who needed a two-bedroom house, with a local connection. In terms of the two houses let on intermediate rent, information from the Tai Teg register confirmed that three on the list lived in Chwilog and had a local connection and were therefore eligible for the units. Based on the information submitted as part of the application, it was considered that a suitable need had been confirmed for the development, and the section of the proposal located outside the boundary formed a logical extension to the village.

 

In the context of the Welsh language, the Language Unit, in their response to the consultation, noted that the linguistic assessment submitted was comprehensive, looking at the history of developments in the area, a comprehensive study area and an analysis of the current linguistic position. They also noted that the statement had included presumptions on the fluency of prospective tenants, and the potential linguistic impact and that the assessment had confirmed the local need. It was acknowledged that concerns had been raised regarding the proposal, but no irrefutable evidence had been submitted to show that the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the Language. Consequently, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable in terms of policy PS1 and the relevant supplementary planning guidance.

 

In the context of visual and residential amenities, it was noted that the site was located on the outskirts of the village, and it was not considered that it would have a significant visual impact on the landscape and would suit the built context of the existing area and the rest of the village. The report also included a full assessment of the amended proposal on general and residential amenities, and it was not considered that the proposal was likely to have a significant detrimental impact on nearby residents.

 

It was reiterated that matters of transport, biodiversity, infrastructure and archaeology had been addressed and had received a full assessment, and it was considered that they were acceptable subject to planning conditions.

 

In the context of open spaces, reference was made to the proposed plan that included providing a public open space in the south-eastern corner of the site that would also include a sustainable drainage area. It was explained, as it was not possible to provide play equipment on this section, a contribution to provide equipment in another area would be relevant.

 

In the context of educational matters, it was noted that capacity was available within the local School in connection with this development, but as had happened for other sites designated within Chwilog, it was considered essential that the three designated sites were considered in terms of the impact on education locally. Consequently, it would be impossible to anticipate which site would be developed first and that it would not be reasonable for the first developer to pay a higher contribution. Therefore, in fairness, it was decided that all contributions would be divided equally so that the three designated sites would face the same costs, and to this end, an educational contribution was needed for this application.  

 

It was considered that the proposal complied with the requirements of local and national policies and therefore, the officers recommended to approve the application subject to a 106 or unilateral agreement for an open and educational space contribution and relevant conditions.

 

b)           Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector to the application made the following observations:

·         The majority of Chwilog residents objected to the application.

·         Many estates had already been built in the village over previous years and building more would have a negative impact on the community, including the school and the Welsh language.

·         There were not enough facilities in the village to allow more people into the village - no shop, post office or a regular bus service.

·         Health and safety concerns about the site's risk assessment - the pavement from the entrance ended on the 'clawdd' boundary of the telephone exchange. This meant that residents who would use the pavement would have to step out into the road to continue their journey - very dangerous to the elderly, the disabled and children.

·         On behalf of Cadnant, a company called SAP Transport Planning had conducted a survey in terms of amount, size and the speed of vehicles going up and down the village - the data highlighted, from the direction of Y Ffôr, it appeared that 85% of vehicles drove more than 20mph and, from the direction of Cricieth, that 60% drove over 20mph - this needed the attention of the Council's Highways Unit. The survey was completed in February, the quietest month of the year, and should it be conducted in the busiest summer month, this would present very different conclusions and highlight that the development was located next to a very busy road.

·         The Council had improved the speed bumps in the village and there was a need for a further survey to prove that the speed bumps had made a difference to slow traffic speed.

 

c)           Taking advantage of the right to speak, the agent noted the following observations:

·         The application was submitted jointly between Grŵp Cynefin and Williams Homes Y Bala to address the increasing need for affordable housing.

·         The development would be led by Grŵp Cynefin, with support from the Welsh Government Housing Grant, under the control of Cyngor Gwynedd through a development programme - the grant was earmarked to develop the plan within this financial year.

·         Most of the site was within the LDP housing designation and was designated for 20 houses.

·         There was planning permission for 21 houses, to include seven affordable houses on the site since 2017, which was renewed in 2022 and continued to be valid and it could be implemented - the permission was approved in accordance with the LDP which remained operational and therefore the situation between the current permission and the application in question was comparative and was a relevant planning matter to be considered by the committee.

·         Cynefin had worked closely with the Housing Department to ensure that the type and housing mix supported the Housing Strategy and responded to the housing crisis.

·         The Housing Strategic Unit had confirmed that the proposal addressed the need for housing.

·         There had been a lot of public consultation; a meeting with the Community Council and the Local Member prior to submitting the application; discussed with the Planning Department and statutory consultants.

·         Discussions with the Highways Department had led to changes such as improving road safety by upgrading a nearby ‘speed cushion’ to be a ‘raised table’ and installing a formal crossing for pedestrians.

·         A comprehensive linguistic assessment had been submitted and there was no evidence that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the Language - it addressed Policy PS1.

·         The Allocation Policy addressed local connection and a high % of Welsh speakers - the policy had received consideration by the Language Commissioner who had noted that the policy was completely appropriate.

·         The proposal would provide housing to local people.

           

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

·          That he objected the application.

·          The Community Council was unanimous in refusing the application.

·          Almost everyone from the village was against the development - there was a petition, that had been signed by 160 residents in a short period of time (a significant number in a village the size of Chwilog).

There were clear, appropriate grounds to object on the petition - the proposal was a large development; there was no evidence of the local need of this scale; it would change the character of the village; it would lead to a detrimental linguistic impact; an impact on traffic and infrastructure.

·        No e-mail noting the full observations of the Community Council had been included in the report, but the developer's information was included in full - no fair play to the voice of the local community - this in itself was grounds to refuse.

·          There were several grounds to refuse:

·          Growth that was not properly anticipated and was incompatible with Policy TAI3 - this was a development of a large scale and would change the village.

·          It was contrary to policy ISA 2 and ISA 1 - there was no appropriate infrastructure in place, not many services and not enough space in the local school. Traffic levels were high and there were no suitable footpaths from the village to other places.

·          The Chwilog housing designation in the LDP was 38, but 36 had already been constructed during the current LDP's life. Another 25 would be far above the designation of 38 which would lead to an over-development - a 10% increase in the village's housing stock and almost double the social housing stock in one application.

·          Failure to satisfy Policy PS1 and TAN 20 - a thorough and meaningful assessment was required of the linguistic impact - no quantitative modelling of the impact of 25 units or mitigation measures had been recommended e.g., local allocation policy. In addition, there was no action plan for the development with the Welsh language or evidence regarding how the linguistic character of Chwilog could be protected. This made the development contrary to PSI, TAI 3 and the principles of TAN 20. No consideration to the reduction in the percentage of speakers over time with housing turnover or consideration to the residents of the new houses (most likely, these had not been completely validated by the County Council). The data also did not validate the language of households or the village's language use. Chwilog was amongst the highest in Dwyfor with 80% of Welsh speakers - the application was contrary to PS 1 sub-clause 4. Applications that caused linguistic harm should not be approved - this development was too big and too soon, which threatened the village's linguistic capacity.

·          Contrary to Policy TAI 8 sub-clause 4 - where the correct mix of housing and occupancy must be ensured to satisfy the area's current community needs - there was no mix of occupancy - it doubled the social housing stock in one application.

·          The data was contrary to what was recommended by Planning Policy Wales - namely the need for local data to be owned locally - this was where there was data of wide regional interest which gave a misunderstanding of the genuine need in the village.

·          The houses were outside the development boundary - Policy TAI 16 noted that they had to be subject to a local residence clause. This was a promise - an empty promise? A 106 local condition was required to ensure that the four houses were for local people.

·          There were several grounds to refuse the application and therefore the Committee was encouraged to refuse it.

 

d)           It was proposed and seconded to approve the application

 

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

·       The proposal was part of the Gwynedd Housing Strategy.

·       Most of the site was within the development boundary.

·       There was existing permission on the site for 21 days.

·       There were 79 names on the housing list.

·       The proposal offered 100% affordable housing.

·       An appropriate mix of housing. 

·       There was a need for a thorough and robust language assessment. The linguistic statement had been submitted by the developer - therefore, how could a decisive conclusion be reached?

·       Concern about the impact on the Welsh language. Another introduction to the village could undermine the Welsh population that was already in the village.

·       There was a failure to comply with Policy TAI 3 - there was a need for the development to be proportional with the village's scale.

·       Some units were outside the development boundary - a mechanism had to be in place to ensure there was a 106 agreement on them.

·       Contrary to Policy PCYFF 2 - it created a detrimental impact on the local community.

·       36 houses had already been constructed. The village's capacity, in accordance with the LDP, was 38. Anything more than 38 would be too much and Chwilog would be unable to support the community.

·       Any housing developments had to reasonably fit the village - 25 was too much, too soon.

·       There was a need to look at the Gwynedd Housing Allocation Policy.

·       The existing permission of seven affordable housing would have been acceptable - why not continue with this?

·       How could the local need be evidenced? A local detailed assessment was required, supported by vast research - why were there no observations by the Local Housing Facilitator?

·       Generally, units for one person were not easy to fill.

·       The educational contribution was insufficient.

·       The houses had been squeezed together - this was likely to lead to a dispute between tenants.

·       There was no assurance of the justification for local housing in the exception site.

·       The Community Council had unanimously refused the application.

·       Suspicion about the 'local demand' for housing.

·       There was not enough space in the school.

·       That Housing Associations 'leading' on this was best - was it not the local opinion that was most important? The local opinion in this case was completely clear - 25 dwellings was too much for a village the size of Chwilog. There was a need to listen to the voice of the local community - a petition had been submitted.

·       Chwilog was an area of linguistic significance in terms of the Welsh language.

·       The right houses in the wrong place. The change was too big, too soon which would impact the character of the village.

 

e)           In response to the observations, the Assistant Head noted that information about Chwilog's indicative supply had been clearly explained in the report, as well as evidence about the demand - there was specific justification about the county need evidence and the rationale for the four houses (located outside the development boundary) was limited to the local need. He reiterated that the Language Unit's observations noted that the linguistic statement submitted was detailed.

 

The Monitoring Officer elaborated that the statutory role of the Committee was to make objective decisions based on evidence. He noted that the four houses on the exception site had specific conditions in accordance with requirements; that planning history highlighted that there was already permission given for 20 houses on the designated site that would include seven affordable houses. With evidence on the need and views expressed about the impact on the Welsh language, the committee must submit evidence to the contrary should they refuse the application.

 

f)            A request was made for a registered vote:

 

In accordance with the Procedural Rules, the following vote was recorded on the proposal to approve:-

 

         In favour: 3 - Councillors Elwyn Edwards, Edgar Owen, Anne Lloyd Jones.

 

Against: 10 - Councillors Elin Hywel, Cai Larsen, Gareth A Roberts, Berwyn Parry Jones, Delyth Lloyd Griffiths, Gareth Tudor Jones, Huw Rowlands, Louise Hughes, John Pughe Roberts and Gruffydd Williams.

 

         Abstaining: 0

 

         The proposal fell.

 

It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application based on a lack of need for the affordable housing located on the part of the site that forms an exception site.

 

In response, the Assistant Head of the Department noted, should the application be refused, he would refer the application to a cooling off period.

 

         RESOLVED to refuse the application contrary to the recommendation.

 

Reason: On the basis of a lack of need for the affordable housing located on the part of the site that forms an exception site.

 

As a result, the application will be referred to a cooling off period and will return to the Committee on another date with a report highlighting risks arising from this reason for refusal and the reasons noted by the Local Member during the Committee.