Agenda item

Erection of 20 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 delegate the right to the Head of Environment Department to approve the application, subject to a 106 agreement or a unilateral agreement for an educational contribution and play equipment on an open space, together with the following conditions:

 

1.         Time

2.         Development to comply with the approved plans

3.         A programme for providing affordable housing must be submitted and agreed

4.         The external materials including the roof slates must be agreed

5.         Removal of Permitted Development Rights

6.         Welsh Water/Drainage condition

7.         Highways Conditions

8.         Biodiversity/NRW conditions

9.         Building Control Plan

10.       A Welsh name for the housing estate and individual houses.

11.       Restrict the use to C3 use class only

12.       Complete landscaping

 

Note: Bat Licence

 

Erection of 20 affordable homes, creation of new vehicular access from the B4354 along with associated works

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form.

 

a)           The ⁠Planning Manager highlighted that this was a full application to erect 20 affordable homes along with the creation of a new vehicular access and associated developments. ⁠It was reported that the site had now been amended and was in its entirety on a site specifically designated for a T64 housing development within the Chwilog development boundary, with the number of houses proposed reduced from 25 to 20 to enable this.

 

It was explained that plots nos. 16-19 (Two 3 bed houses, one 2 bed house and one 2 bed bungalow) from the original plan had been deleted, and that plots 24 - 25 had been changed from two 1 bed flats to one 2 bed house. The proposal did not provide units outside the development boundary, providing 100% affordable housing with a mix of occupancy. The proposed plan included the provision of public open space and a sustainable drainage area.

 

Members were reminded that the application had been submitted to the Planning Committee on 27 April 2026, where it was decided to refuse the application on the grounds of one reason namely that it was contrary to the LDP's Tai 16 Policy  Exception Sites as it was not possible to demonstrate a need for the exempt land until the designated T64 site had been developed, and therefore the application had been referred to a cooling-off period. ⁠Since then, the application had been specifically amended in response to the above refusal reason. It was highlighted that several revised documents and plans had been submitted to reflect the change, and a period of full re-consultation, including public consultation, had taken place. As the proposal had been amended in response to the objection of the Planning Committee, the application was being resubmitted for a decision based on the amendments.

 

Reference was made to responses to the second consultation and to those numbers who had a five year connection with Gwynedd and wished to live in Chwilog, together with an update of the need figures for the whole of Gwynedd which confirmed that there were 2103 people on the Housing Options register for Social housing with a five year connection with Gwynedd and 882 on the Tai Teg register. ⁠ It was confirmed that the Housing Needs Report had been completed by the Rural Housing Facilitator and submitted as part of the application.

 

It was noted that the proposal would offer 100% affordable housing with the status of the village of Chwilog in the LDP meaning the expectation was for affordable units to serve the affordable need of Gwynedd (as was the case with other similar sites designated throughout the County). It was reiterated that the need had been proven and that the proposal complied with the requirements of the LDP's policies TAI 3, TAI 8 and TAI 15. It was emphasised that the proposal did not include the provision of housing outside the development boundary, and therefore policy TAI 16 Exception Sites no longer applied to the application.

 

It was not considered that the houses would cause significant harm to the built quality of the site or the local neighbourhood and, consequently, it was considered that the development was acceptable under Policies PCYFF 2 and PCYFF 3 of the LDP as they related to these matters.

 

It was noted that the Language Unit had confirmed that the language statement had included assumptions of the fluency of prospective tenants, and the potential linguistic impact. While their most recent observations required confirmation of the local need, their previous observations for larger development had confirmed that they were satisfied that the assessment had confirmed the need locally. To this end, it was not considered that the proposal was contrary to the requirements of policy PS1 of the Local Development Plan.

 

In the context of Open Spaces, it was reported that the proposed development would offer an open area of 955m² on the site, but that play equipment was not being offered. It was considered that in such a case, and as had already been agreed with similar developments, that the proposal would be to secure a financial contribution through a 106 agreement or a unilateral agreement ensuring that the proposal was acceptable in accordance with the relevant requirements of policy ISA 5.

 

Confirmation was received from the Education Department that there was capacity within the local schools but given Chwilog's position as a whole in relation to the other designations, it was considered reasonable to secure a financial contribution by means of a 106 agreement or a unilateral agreement in this case, as had been done with the other designations. To this end it was considered that the proposal was acceptable and complied with the requirements of Policy ISA 1. 

 

Reference was made to matters regarding highways, biodiversity, archaeology and land drainage matters noting that they were acceptable.

 

In closing, the Senior Manager noted that this was a proposal for an affordable housing development that had been designed to meet a specific need that had been proven and was located in its entirety on a site designated for housing within the village development boundary and which had received approval in the past for similar residential developments. As a result, the scheme was considered acceptable in principle and complied with the requirements of relevant local and national planning policies and guidance. The recommendation was to grant the application in accordance with appropriate conditions.

 

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

·        That the new-look application had been submitted with the number of units reduced from 25 to 20

·        However, it was considered that 20 new units in a small village like Chwilog remained too much and he therefore objected to the application

·        That the Community Council unanimously objected to the application - the Community Council's extended comments had been included in the report and the reasons for the objection were clear and numerous

·        That almost everyone in the village was against the development - a petition had been signed by 160 residents (a significant number in a village the size of Chwilog). There were clear, appropriate grounds for objecting on the petition - the proposal was a large development that would change the village's character; Chwilog was a Welsh-speaking village and the development would likely lead to a reduction in the percentage of the Welsh-speaking population; no evidence of local need for housing of this scale in the ward, increased traffic levels and infrastructure pressures, capacity of the sewerage system and local services, such as the local school. It was disappointing that the petition had not been included as an appendix to the report - this would mean that fair play could be given to the local voice.

·        There were several grounds for refusal:

·        Contrary to policies ISA 2 and ISA 1 - there were no appropriate current facilities at Chwilog to cope with the development; the proper infrastructure was not in place, with not many services and no adequate space in the local school.

·        Chwilog's indicative supply was 40 - 35 had been already built within the current LDP period. An additional 20 would be well over the 40-unit allocation which would lead to an overdevelopment and change the rural village of Chwilog. Two estates of 15 houses had already been built in the village - this was an application for 20 more 

·        Failure to satisfy PS1 Sub-clause 4 – 'causing damage to the linguistic structure of the village'. Erecting an additional 20 units would be too much of a change for the village to cope with, and would change the linguistic balance of the community; the size of the development was disproportionate to the size of the village and the change was too much, too soon; threatened the linguistic capacity of the school and the community to linguistically assimilate the development - this had not been assessed by the language assessment

·        The language assessment was one that had been commissioned / paid for by the developer - it did not consider that the % of Welsh speakers of Social Housing in each area had fallen significantly over time due to a change of occupancy

·        The language assessment did not consider statistics for new estates elsewhere in Gwynedd and did not ascertain the language of households or language use. It did not give a picture that corresponded to the census and the decline in Welsh speakers in each community since the LDP period

·        The language assessment did not consider the linguistic harm of not having a local lettings policy system and the % of houses let to Welsh speakers. A Local Lettings Policy was essential in this case to mitigate linguistic harm

·        Referring to the Prosiect Bro Compendium which stated that Chwilog was among the four strongest areas in Dwyfor in terms of being a linguistic stronghold for the Welsh language (speakers and households); there would be linguistic harm to the village if the occupants of the houses came from wider areas - this would be the result of the system for selecting occupants to social housing.

·        The situation of building large estates without satisfying the local need

·        That the development was disproportionate to the size of the village. There was nothing wrong with social housing, but the number in this case posed questions. 20 would double the number of social housing in the village in one go

·        That the data was contrary to what was recommended by Planning Policy Wales – namely the need for locally relevant data – here there was data of broad regional interest which gave a false impression of the real need of the village – that some had 'chosen' Chwilog and nearby areas, and others had highlighted 'interest' rather than a real need – this did not give a picture of the real need locally

·        There were several grounds to refuse the application. At the last meeting, members voiced opinions to reject the application and he urged them to do the same again

 

c)               It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application, contrary to the recommendation

 

Reason: To refuse based on Strategic Policy 1: Sub-clause 4 - The development would cause substantial harm to the character and language balance of the community of Chwilog

 

In response, the Monitoring Officer stated that the application before them was smaller than the previous one, although it was similar in terms of features and impact. At the April 2026 committee, the application was refused with one refusal reason – that reason had now received attention and response from the applicant. In terms of propriety, the above reason for refusal was additional and would require evidence that would justify a refusal based on a language assessment.

 

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

·        That the ‘exempt’ land had now been removed and the remainder of the site had been included in the LDP

·        That the percentage of Welsh speakers appeared higher in social housing estates compared to the percentage of the village - there was concern here of depriving Welsh speaking people of social housing

·        The number of designations at Chwilog may be due to lack of land for construction in Pwllheli - this et a need that was 'fairly local'

·        In sympathy with the Local Member - 20 was too much for the countryside, but bound to local policies, to the LDP and to Planning Inspectors. The designation is too much for a village

·        The principle had already been approved

·        The houses were 100% affordable

·        The need had been highlighted – that sufficient social housing must be built

·        If local people wished to stay locally in social housing, that was their choice, and therefore housing must be provided for them. By refusing, local people would move away

·        The local concern was understood, but the land was earmarked for 21 houses and some of those were open market houses

·        That the development was within the development boundary. A refusal would result in appeal costs.

·       It was welcomed that a Housing Needs Report had been completed by the Rural Housing Facilitator and submitted as part of the application.

·        Despite a mix in the type of house, it did not exactly correspond to local requirements: although 15 houses were 2/3 bedroom, 13 were local need; there had been no interest in the bungalow and letting one person flats was difficult

·        It was a strong application on a designated site, but 20 social housing units was too much for the small, rural, village of Chwilog

·        The impact on the character of Chwilog needed to be considered - Chwilog was a village of linguistic significance

·        10 houses would be an acceptable number on the site with a children's play area

·        The language assessment stated that 'with the limited evidence available, we are of the view that granting the application will have a significant positive impact on the linguistic resilience of Chwilog'. This was a comfortable, confident statement based on 'limited evidence'

·        There was pressure to grant the application by suggesting high appeal costs, and that an inspector from Cardiff would come to deliver an opinion even though he was not local to the area or aware of the situation of the Welsh language in Chwilog.

·        That there was an extant planning application on the site - a planning application for 21 houses (7 affordable houses and the remainder being open market housing), so what were the arguments for having 20 affordable homes? Happy to grant open market housing, but not to allow housing for people who really needed housing in Gwynedd?

·        The houses that had already been built in Chwilog and had a positive impact on the language there and therefore a comment in the language assessment confirmed what had already happened. Ysgol Chwilog had been recognised as one of the strongholds of the Welsh language

·        It was a positive development in line with Cyngor Gwynedd's policies

·        A recent development in Nefyn - 3 houses out of 14 let to people from Nefyn. There was nothing to prevent non-Welsh speaking people/families from getting housing in Chwilog

·        If granted, there was a request for a condition to use a Local Letting Policy to prioritise local people and protect the Welsh language

 

In response to the request to impose a planning condition for the use of a Local Lettings Policy, the Monitoring Officer noted that the imposition of such a condition was not within the Committee's power.

 

The Assistant Head of Service added that if the application was refused, contrary to the recommendation, it would have to be referred to a cooling-off period due to the associated risks.

 

d)           A request was made for a recorded vote:

 

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the following vote was recorded on the proposal to refuse the application:-

 

In favour: 6 - Councillors Huw Rowlands, Elwyn Edwards, Gareth T Jones, Elin Hywel. John Pughe Roberts, Gruffydd Williams ⁠

 

Against: 9 - Councillors Delyth Griffiths, Berwyn Parry Jones, Edgar Owen, Dafydd Meurig, Cai Larsen, Dyfrig Siencyn, Louise Hughes, Anne Lloyd Jones, Gareth Coj Parry

 

Abstaining: 0 ⁠

 

The proposal fell.

 

dd)    It was proposed and seconded to approve the application in accordance with the recommendation.

 

  RESOLVED: To delegate the right to the Head of Environment Department to approve the application, subject to a 106 agreement or a unilateral agreement for an educational contribution and play equipment on an open space, together with the following conditions:

 

1.            Time

2.            Development to comply with the approved plans

3.            A programme for providing affordable housing must be submitted and agreed

4.            The external materials including the roof slates must be agreed

5.            Removal of Permitted Development Rights

6.            Welsh Water / Drainage Condition

7.            Highways Conditions

8.            Biodiversity / CNC Conditions

9.            Building Control Plan

10.          A Welsh name for the housing estate and individual houses.

11.          Restrict the use to C3 use class only

12.          Complete landscaping

 

Note: Bat Licence