Erection
of three detached two storey dwellings
and associated developments
Local Member: Councillor Elfed Williams
Minutes:
Construction of three two-storey
detached dwellings and associated developments.
The Members
had visited the site.
(a)
The Senior Development
Control Officer expanded on the application’s background and noted that the application had been deferred at the Planning Committee dated 4 July 2016 in order
to undertake a site visit and so
that the officers could verify the figures submitted to the Committee.
Members were
reminded that this was an application
to erect three two-storey detached houses on a brownfield
site within the development boundary of Clwt y
Bont. It was highlighted that these four
bedroomed houses would be for the open market with
a separate entrance for each property
and each would lead to an
unclassified road servicing a number of dwellings.
It
was noted that the main consideration was Policy CH4 of
the GUDP which approved proposals for the construction of new dwellings on unallocated
sites located within village development boundaries, provided they conform
to all the relevant policies
of the GUDP and the three
criteria which form part of the Policy. Attention was drawn to the fact that criterion 1 related to having a proportion of all units on the site
as affordable units, unless providing
affordable housing on the site was inappropriate. The Supporting Planning Statement (supported by the Viability Calculations) explained that it was not viable to offer an affordable element
as part of the scheme. It was highlighted that the applicants had shown that the market value remained
at £200,000 for each dwelling and in
accordance with the Gwynedd
and Anglesey Councils' Affordable Housing Viability Study 2013, this figure of £200,000 was deemed reasonable and appropriate for Clwt y Bont.
Concerns had also
been received in terms of the impact on residential
amenities but it was explained that this was not considered unacceptable, subject to relevant planning conditions.
It
was noted that several objectors had claimed that the land was unstable and contaminated by waste such
as old cars. It was reported that policy
B30 suggested refusing applications on contaminated land in the absence of information showing appropriate treatment of the site. However, no firm evidence
had been submitted to support the allegations of unstable land or
any contamination hazards and none
of the official agencies which had been consulted had raised these issues. Should the application be approved, it was recommended that an additional
condition be imposed to ensure that a desk-top
study was undertaken to assess the risk of contamination on the site and that,
if any further
action was required, this should take place
prior to the development of the site.
(b) The following main
points were made by the local member (not a member of this Planning
Committee):- Taking advantage of the
opportunity to speak, the Local Member noted:-
·
That the site's
setting impacted on the amenities of nearby residents
·
That the land
had been raised and was unsuitable for development - this was contrary to B28 of the
GUDP;
·
That no affordable element had been
included in the proposal and insufficient evidence had been submitted to
justify not including an affordable house;
·
That the house prices were
too expensive for local people
- this was unacceptable and contrary to policy CH4
·
Concerns about road safety
- suggestion that the road toward the site was too narrow
and that constructing three houses there was likely to have a detrimental effect on the situation
·
Erecting a 2 metre high fence around
the site would affect the view from neighbouring houses
·
Suggestion that it was the Council who owned
the land?
·
That the problems with Japanese
knotweed on the site had to be acknowledged.
(c)
It was proposed and seconded
to approve the application.
(ch)
During the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted:
·
Clear that
the quality of the land gave rise to concerns,
but it was highlighted that Building Control
would ensure that the responsibility for proving the site was safe prior to starting the construction work lay with
the developer.
·
Constructing three houses was not likely to create
additional problems
·
That open applications for 13 affordable houses
already existed in the area
·
Attention was drawn to observations by the Strategic Housing Unit that one of the houses needed to be affordable
·
That the site
was far more elevated than the garden of the nearest house and
that there would be obvious overlooking here. Planting trees would not solve this and so
a suggestion was made to change the aspect of the houses to avoid overlooking.
·
Difficult site
to develop, but conditions to deal with problems must
be considered.
(d) In response
to the observations the Senior Planning
Service Manager noted that the site was not an easy one
to develop and if there was justification
for not developing, the relevant policies would make an
exception based on evidence. That
building costs exceeded usual costs was reiterated. In terms of offering
one affordable house as part
of the development, it was noted that the application had been assessed by the Property Department and the Joint Planning
Policy Unit and both have confirmed
that developing on this site
would not be viable. It was reiterated that the development contributed to the variety of houses needed in
the area and that there was no basis on
which to refuse the application because of affordable housing issues.
(dd)Following a vote,
the proposal fell.
(e) It was proposed and seconded
to approve the application on the condition that one of the three houses was an affordable house
(f) The Senior Planning Service Manager
replied that there was no evidence
to prove that the site was not viable for affordable houses and that
costs of developing the site were substantial.
(ff) The
Solicitor replied that it was necessary
to prove that the financial evidence was incorrect (even though the evidence had been verified by
the Joint Policy Unit and a Recognised Chartered Surveyor).
(g) It
was proposed and seconded to defer the decision in order
to receive a more detailed report as to why
it would not be possible to provide affordable units as part of the development.
RESOLVED to defer the application in order to
receive a more detailed report as to why it is not possible to provide
affordable units as part of the development.
Supporting documents: