Outline application for the erection of 69 dwellings including 20 affordable units.
Local Member: Councillor Ann Williams
Minutes:
An outline application to
erect 69 dwellings, including 20 affordable units
(a)
The Development Control Manager expanded on the application's background
and noted that this was an outline application for planning permission (with
all details reserved) to erect 69 new residential units on agricultural land in
the village of Bethesda. The application was submitted to the Planning
Committee in June 2015, where it was deferred in order to receive further
information regarding bats, trees and the loss of important habitat. It was noted that a Tree Preservation Order had been
attached to a tree on the site since 31.8.15 and that the application’s agent
had now submitted assessments on trees and bats and these had been assessed.
In terms of the principle of
the development, it was noted that the site was designated in the UDP for
housing and the proposal would respond to the demand for housing in the area. A reference was
made to an appeal resolution on a nearby site where a residential development
had been refused on the Gray Garage site by the Council in 2014. An appeal was
conducted as a result of this refusal and the Inspector stated in his appeal
decision that the development was required in order to satisfy the need for
housing as current targets were not being met.
Reference was also made to the
objections to the application with the majority concerning the Welsh Language
and the claim that this development if approved would have a detrimental impact
on the language in Bethesda / Dyffryn Ogwen. In response, one of the conclusions of the
Housing and Language Study, which was conducted jointly with the Isle of
Anglesey County Council and the Snowdonia National Park Authority, was that
promoting the right mix of housing units in the right locations could
contribute towards sustaining or strengthening Welsh-speaking communities.
The information reiterated information about the
relative strength of the language in the Ogwen ward and it referred to the
existing social infrastructure, the support from the Language Initiative, the
schools’ language policy and additional measures that could be put in place.
Together this could contribute to the aim of
maintaining and strengthening the language in Bethesda and the local area.
Although the Joint Planning
Policy Unit had referred to some deficiencies on the Language Statement
submitted by the applicant, it was considered that in essence it was acceptable
and therefore the application was acceptable and satisfied the requirements of
Strategic Policy 1 and the requirements of policies A1, A2 and A3 in terms of
linguistic matters.
In the context of traffic and
flooding, there were no objections to the proposal.
It was stressed that there was
an amendment to the recommendation in the report as the assessments for trees
and bats had been received after the report had been prepared. Having assessed the assessments the proposal was
considered to be unacceptable on the grounds that a lack of acceptable
information had been submitted in relation to the ability to thoroughly assess
the impact on protected species, namely the activities of bats as well as an
assessment of the trees as roosts. In the
same manner, no sufficient assessment had been submitted for the trees in terms
of the impact of the proposed development on these including those that were
now protected by the Tree Preservation Order.
(b) Attention was drawn to the additional
observations form.
(c) Taking advantage of the right to speak,
an objector noted the following main
points:
·
That the three Community Committees had stated that the development was
totally unsuitable
·
Consideration needed to be given to flooding, traffic, the welfare of the
Welsh Language and the local need for housing
·
Flooding – insufficient information
·
Traffic – inconsistencies on the information submitted – obvious matters
had been ignored
·
The welfare of the Welsh Language – conclusions were totally unfounded. The
understanding of the Joint Planning Policy Unit was insulting
·
Need for housing – no evidence of the numbers. Insufficient
information received
·
Request for the Planning Committee to refuse the application on the basis
of the above four considerations together with biodiversity matters.
(ch) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
agent on behalf of the applicant noted the following main points:
·
Flooding and traffic were matters that had already been addressed
·
The location of the site had been identified as part of the Local Unitary
Development Plan and therefore it was not an application that imposed on green
land.
·
The development was a response to the need for local housing
·
From the beginning it was proposed to retain the trees and therefore there
was a willingness to re-discuss the site’s layout
·
Bats – An Independent Inspector had stated that the development would be
of benefit to bats.
·
A request for the Committee to give full consideration to the application
in question
(d) Taking
advantage of the right to speak Councillor Elin Walker Jones, acting as a Local
Member (she was not a member of this Planning Committee) noted the following
main points:
·
That the application was contrary to the policies
·
Public opinion was to object – this had been undertaken via letters,
petitions, community councils and language enterprises.
·
Lack of planning to safeguard green land / bats / trees. Welcomed the order but this was insufficient. The applicant
had not provided a sufficient report.
·
Flooding – assessment completed in 2010 and was therefore dated. Historical
problems existed on this site
·
Traffic – the proposal would entail an increase of 77% in traffic on
Ffordd Coetmor. Data had been collected during school holidays and was
therefore incorrect. Again, it was noted
that the traffic assessment had been completed in 2009! There were narrow roads here and creating passing
places was insufficient to alleviate the impact - totally insufficient.
·
70 houses were already for sale on the open market in Bethesda - therefore
why were more needed?
·
A very superficial assessment had been submitted by the applicant in terms
of the impact on the Welsh Language. The development was too big and therefore
added 50% to the existing Coetmor population – again mitigation measures by the
applicant were totally insufficient.
·
A request for refusal based on the above consideration – to finally
refuse, once and for all.
(dd) In response to
the above observations, the Senior Planning Service Manager noted:-
·
That the planning considerations had been considered in detail. The
recommendation was to refuse based on biodiversity and trees. The principle of building houses was acceptable and
this was a response to the evidence that housing was needed in the area.
·
No objections had been received from the statutory consultees dealing with
highway and flooding issues.
·
There was no evidence to refuse the application on the grounds of
Language, Highways, Flooding and Need. If the application was refused on the basis
of these four reasons then the application would have to be referred to a
cooling-off period.
Proposed and seconded to
refuse the application based on the officers’ recommendation only.
(e) During
the discussion, the following observations were made:
·
The way that the language assessment had been received from the Joint
Planning Policy Unit was not a fair reflection. This element should be considered further
in terms of weighing up the information in detail.
·
Bethesda was now a village under threat on the outskirts of an Anglicised
city.
·
Building 69 houses on the site was not acceptable.
·
Follow the advice received
·
The Welsh Government had to consider linguistic matters rather than
transfer the decision to an inspector who had not made any comment about the
language.
To refuse – reasons
The proposal is considered to be unacceptable based on the lack of sufficient information submitted in relation to the ability to thoroughly assess the impact on protected species namely bat activity together with an assessment of the trees as roosting areas. In the same manner no sufficient and acceptable assessment was submitted of the trees in terms of the impact of the proposed development on these trees with some with a Tree Preservation Order. Consequently, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the requirements of Strategic Policy 1, policies A1, A3, B19, B20 and B23 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan, the advice given in paragraphs 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 of Technical Advice Note 5: Planning and Nature Conservation and paragraph 5.5.3 of Planning Policy Wales as it is considered that insufficient or acceptable information has been provided in order to be able to fully assess the impact of the development.
Supporting documents: