Agenda item

Resubmission of a previously refused application to remove a section 106 agreement in connection with planning permission C10D/0017/33/LL relating to the erection of an affordable dwelling on part of a field near Penboncyn, Boduan, Pwllheli. 

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Anwen J Davies

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To Refuse

 

Reason:

 

It is considered that the Section 106 Agreement that restricts the property to an affordable house for local need continues to have a relevant purpose for planning need, and therefore, that it continues to be in compliance with the guidance as part of 'Planning Obligations' Community Infrastructure Levy 2010 and Circular 13/97, Planning Policy Wales, Chapter 3 "Making and Enforcing Planning Decisions" and the Town and Country Planning (Modification and Discharge of Planning Obligations) Act 1992. The removal of the agreement as noted in the application, would also undermine the Council's strategy in relation to safeguarding an acceptable number of affordable houses within the county, contrary to the relevant requirements of Policy TAI 15 of the Joint Anglesey and Gwynedd Local Development Plan together with relevant guidelines in the relevant Planning Guidance: Affordable Housing, Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Obligations and Technical Advice Note 2:  Planning and Affordable Housing.  

 

Re-submission of an application previously refused to revoke a 106 agreement relating to the erection of an affordable house permitted under reference C10D/0017/33/LL on part of a field near Penboncyn, Boduan, Pwllheli.

 

a)     The Planning Manager highlighted that it was an application to revoke a 106 agreement attached to planning permission in 2010 which ensured that the property would be an affordable unit with a discount of at least 40%. The application had been submitted as the current owners did not consider the house to be an affordable house, even at a discounted rate due to its financial value. It was noted that the property had not been constructed, but that work in connection with the planning permission, including the entrance, had commenced and therefore the planning permission was extant. The property, if built in accordance with the permitted plans, would be a single-story detached house with 4 bedrooms and a living room located within the Boduan rural area which was well outside any current development boundary, and therefore in open countryside.

 

From a planning history perspective, the original applicant's application (not the current applicants) had been assessed and the need for affordable housing was proven. However, the size of the property was significantly larger than usual for a 4-bedroom affordable house and therefore, the recommendation made by officers then was to refuse the application. The application was discussed at the planning committee at the time and members had resolved to go contrary to the recommendation and approve the application subject to the completion of a 106 agreement. It was reiterated that Boduan was no longer defined as a rural village and therefore, the site was in the open countryside in terms of the relevant planning consideration.

 

It was noted that a previous application for the revocation of the 106 had been refused under delegated rights and the application had been submitted to the planning committee for a decision at the local member's request. 

 

Reference was made to the procedure for assessing the revocation of 106 agreements, the specific criteria and that the agreement remained relevant – the agreement for ensuring that the unit was affordable in perpetuity. The site was originally in a location directly near a building coloured on the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan proposals map, which defined Boduan as a Rural Village and, therefore, without complying with an affordable housing policy at the time it would not have been granted planning permission in the first place. It was reiterated that the need for affordable units in the area of Boduan continued and surrounding areas which had been evidenced by the comments of the Housing Strategic Unit. There was no other means of ensuring that the unit was affordable and therefore the agreement was considered to remain relevant.

 

It was highlighted that information submitted as part of the application referred to valuation, but had not been included, and that the applicants considered that the price was too high to be affordable and therefore available to those who would be eligible for it. It was noted that the area's estimated affordable house price was £126,315 using the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance formula, but the maximum gross household income threshold for households in the assessment criteria for affordable need had increased from £45k to £60k due to rising house prices meaning more people were falling within the affordable housing need threshold. It was therefore considered that people who were eligible for affordable housing could reach this price.

 

It was noted that the house had not yet been built, and therefore there was an opportunity to look at ways of changing its size and design to reduce its value, e.g., the floor area to comply with space requirements set out in the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance. It was also noted that it was not entirely clear what the applicants needed and if there was a real need for a 4-bedroom property.

 

Should the Local Planning Authority consider that the 106 was no longer acceptable or reasonable, paragraph 3.9.1 of the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance confirmed that there may be circumstances in which the existing affordable units did not provide an affordable unit, even at the reduced rate, the Council may consider cancelling the agreement provided that a commuted sum was paid to contribute to the future provision of affordable housing i.e. the difference between the reduced value and the open market value. It was noted that the applicants in this case considered that this sum would be unreasonable, but it was emphasised that this was the mechanism of securing affordable units through the Scheme and was therefore required if the proposal to revoke the 106 was acceptable.

 

Having regard to the information submitted as part of the application and the assessment completed, it was considered that an agreement under Section 106 continued to meet the relevant tests and continued to fulfil a useful planning purpose because they were relevant to the property, and as a means of ensuring that the property remained an affordable unit in the first place and in perpetuity.  It was reiterated that the legal agreement was a means of ensuring that the LDP's current policies, as well as national policies and guidelines, were not undermined. It was considered that this proposal would undermine policies PCYFF 1 and TAI 15 of the LDP together with Supplementary Planning Guidance: Affordable Housing, Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Obligations and Technical Advice Note 2:  Planning and Affordable Housing. The recommendation was to refuse to remove the 106 agreement.

 

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

·        It was a resubmitted application to revoke a section 106 agreement attached to a previous planning permission.

·        The original permission had been granted in 2011 for a single-storey affordable dwelling – the applicants at the time had been assessed and confirmed as in need of affordable housing.

·        However, the approved dwelling significantly exceeded what was expected for a 4-bedroom affordable dwelling – the application had been approved by the committee contrary to officers' recommendation.

·        At the time, the commitment set out a clear purpose, however now the planning policy and circumstances of ownership of the site had changed significantly – the site was now owned by a Welsh-speaking family.

·        The context of the policy had progressed under the LDP – Boduan was no longer within the development boundary and was considered in open countryside – generally, new dwellings were not supported and by today, an affordable dwelling in this location would not correspond with the current policy.

·        The dwelling was not truly affordable – well above the floor area guide for an affordable 4-bedroom home.

·        Located within a generous curtilage in attractive countryside – factors that increased its value.

·        Evidence of a valuation of £425,000 and even with a required discount of 40% the sale price would be around £255,000. An affordable house in this area was closer to £151,000 - reduced value remained over £100,00 than what could be considered as an affordable house price.

·        Commuted sum requirement was excessive and unreasonable – a commuted sum for one dwelling was not fair in scale and nature of the development.

·        Evidence about the need for local housing did not clearly support retaining the restriction. It was doubtful whether these particular properties would meet the local need in a meaningful way.

·        The commitment no longer served a useful planning purpose.

·        It no longer reflected current policy or supported a home that was truly affordable.

 

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

 

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

·        The site was outside the development boundary and in open countryside.

·        What was wrong with getting an affordable house in a countryside site?

·        Permission had been granted contrary to the recommendation because of the 106 element and therefore it would be important to keep the house as affordable.

·        6 were on the Tai Teg list and 27 were on the waiting list, so it would be important to keep it as a 106 property.

·        The buyers of the house had been aware that it had a 106.

 

RESOLVED: To refuse

 

Reason:

 

It is considered that the Section 106 Agreement that restricts the property to an affordable house for local need continues to serve a relevant purpose for planning use, and therefore, that is continues to secure necessary use in accordance with the guidance provided in 'Planning Obligations' Community Infrastructure Levy 2010 and Circular 13/97, Planning Policy Wales, Chapter 3 "Making and Enforcing Planning Decisions" and the Town and Country Planning (Modification and Discharge of Planning Obligations) Act 1992. Removing the agreement as noted in the application would also undermine the Council's strategy in relation to safeguarding an acceptable number of affordable houses within the county, which would be contrary to the relevant requirements of Policies PCYFF 1 and TAI 15 of the Joint Anglesey and Gwynedd Local Development Plan, 2017 together with relevant guidelines in Supplementary Planning Guidance: Affordable Housing, Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Obligations and Technical Advice Note 2:  Planning and Affordable Housing.