Residential development of 17 dwellings (including 2 affordable units) together with a new access.
Local Member: Councillor Elfed Wyn Williams
Minutes:
A residential development of
17 houses (including two affordable units), along with a new access.
(a)
The Senior Planning and Environment Officer expanded on the application’s
background and noted that the cooling-off application had been reported to the
Planning Committee on 27.07.15 with the officers’ recommendation to approve the
proposal as the applicant had submitted information responding to the concerns
of the Planning Committee based on overdevelopment
and a lack of play area provision following the application's submission to
Committee back in March 2015. However,
the Committee decided to defer the decision on the application in order to
confirm that the Linguistic and Community Statement had been received and
assessed appropriately by the Joint Planning Policy Unit. The Joint Planning Policy Unit confirmed that the
Statement had been received and assessed appropriately by the Unit and this had
been included as part of the report submitted originally to the Planning
Committee on 02.03.15.
It was noted that this was an
outline application to build 17 two-storey houses including two affordable
houses on a site south-west of Deiniolen/Clwt-y-bont on a plot of brownfield
land included within the village development boundary. The proposal
also included the creation of a vehicular opening to the adjacent class III
county highway. It was explained that a
previous application for 17 houses (including two affordable houses) was
approved in July, 2010 with a Section 106 agreement to bind two of the 17
houses as affordable homes. However, no reserved details application was submitted
within the statutory period and the permission had now lapsed.
In response to the concerns highlighted by the Committee
regarding over-development and the provision of a play area, full additional
information had been submitted in the report. In short, regarding over-development – there was no increase in the number
of houses proposed in this latest application compared with the application
approved previously in 2010 and it was acceptable in terms of the density
recommendation per hectare. Regarding the provision of a play area, it was noted
that a play area had now been included in the plan – it was noted that every
house had a private garden and additional play areas were situated in the
village.
The Senior Manager expanded on
the possible risks to the Council if the application was refused (listed
clearly in the report) together with the two options that the Committee had.
1. Refuse the application on the
grounds of over-development of the site in terms of building density. Refusing the
application for 17 houses on this site (which corresponded to a building
density of 24 houses per hectare in comparison with the density of 30 units per
hectare which had been suggested both nationally and in the Unitary Development
Plan) on the grounds of over-development would be very hard to justify,
especially given that the site was located within the development boundary, on
previously developed land, which had already received planning permission in
2010 for 17 houses. Refusing for this
reason would pose a significant risk for the Council and would pose a
significant and real risk of costs against the Council should the application
go to appeal.
2. Refuse the application on the
grounds that it was an over-development which would have an impact on the
area's general amenities. In response to this refusal reason, it was believed
that the proposal as submitted for 17 houses would not have a detrimental
impact on general amenities (including residential amenities along with visual
amenities) considering the location and setting of the houses and their density
in relation to nearby structures, together with the site's former industrial
use and its current unkempt condition. A
real risk of costs being claimed against the Council would remain should the
application go to appeal.
It was recommended to delegate
powers to the Senior Planning Manager to approve the application, subject to
the applicant signing a 106 legal agreement to ensure that two of the 17
proposed houses were affordable homes for general local need, and in accordance
with the conditions.
(b)
The following main points were made by the local member (not a member of
this Planning Committee):-
·
That he objected the application
·
Disagreement with the language assessment – he did not agree that the
comment ‘that the previous language assessment’ was sufficient. This raised the question, had a second assessment been
submitted?
·
The proposal would look out of place on the outskirts of the village in
the middle of single units – the impact would be unacceptable.
·
Recognised that there were risks to the Council, but also consideration
needed to be given to the risks to the village of Deiniolen and Gwynedd in
terms of unnecessary houses.
It was proposed and seconded
to approve the application together with a request for a recorded vote.
(c)
During the discussion, the following observations were made:
·
That the development was an over-development that would cause a
detrimental impact on the community of Deiniolen as well as pressure on the
Welsh language.
·
Rural communities and the Welsh Language had to be protected.
·
Developing houses was not tantamount to community development.
·
Was there a need for housing in Deiniolen?
·
Attention had to be given to the Local Member’s comments
·
The number of affordable houses that would be part of the development was
disappointing – five years had elapsed since the initial assessment – are two
affordable houses still acceptable and was the expenditure still correct?
·
Would be happy to see four affordable houses and not two.
·
Need to build the correct type of houses as well as the correct number.
(ch) In response to these observations, the Senior Planning
Service Manager noted that:-
·
They had to assess the information submitted. The main issues
concerning the site were land drainage matters and therefore the site was
difficult to develop. From the selling
figures submitted, the houses would be likely to be affordable anyway.
(d) In accordance with the Procedural Rules, the following
vote to approve the application was a registered vote:
In favour of the proposal to approve the application, (5) Councillors: Gwen Griffith,
Anne T. Lloyd Jones, June Marshall, Michael Sol Owen and John Wyn Williams
Abstained (2) Councillors: Dyfrig Wynn Jones, John Pughe
Roberts
Against the proposal to approve the application, (4) Councillors: Tudor Owen, Eirwyn Williams, Owain Williams and Eurig Wyn.
RESOLVED to delegate powers to the Senior Planning Manager to
approve the application, subject to the applicant signing a 106 legal agreement
to ensure that two of the 17 proposed houses are affordable homes for general
local need, and in accordance with the following conditions:-
1. Standard conditions in relation to the commencement of the
work/submitting details of reserved matters.
2. Natural slate.
3. NRW conditions.
4. Undertake a desktop survey to assess pollution risk (and any
required work).
5. Highways conditions.
6. Welsh Water conditions.
7. Withdrawal of permitted rights from the affordable units
Supporting documents: