Outlined application with some matters reserved to erect eight affordable dwellings (one pair and two terraces of three) along with adapting the existing access, parking areas, estate road and gardens for the individual houses
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Elwyn Jones
Minutes:
Outline application, with some reserved matters,
for constructing eight affordable houses (one set of semi-detached houses and
two terraces of three) along with modifications to an existing access, parking
spaces, road to the estate and gardens for the individual houses
(a) The Planning Manager elaborated on the
background of the application, noting that the application had been deferred at
the Committee meeting held on 16 October 2017 in order to hold a site visit. Some
members had visited the site prior to the meeting.
It
was reported that some issues had arisen following the previous meeting.
Firstly, in light of the observations of Natural Resources Wales (NRW), the
applicant had submitted a pollution risk assessment from appropriate experts
who came to the conclusion that the site was suitable for the development but
were recommending more detailed inspections before providing the
infrastructure. It was noted that NRW and the Public Protection Unit had been
consulted on the content of the report, but no response has been received thus
far. Attention was drawn to the fact that these bodies had already stated their
satisfaction for the development to go ahead, subject to appropriate
conditions, therefore no new objections were anticipated, but there would
possibly be some comments on the methods of operation.
Secondly,
a response had been received from the Joint Planning Policy Unit to the
Community and Language Statement, noting that whilst considering the importance
of ensuring appropriate provision of affordable housing within the County, the
development would be likely to offer an opportunity to keep the population
local in their community and, in doing so, it could have a positive impact on
the Welsh Language.
It
was noted that the matter had been raised at the previous meeting regarding
open space provision on the site, it was confirmed that the JLDP included a
threshold of 10 units, where it was required for developers to make a specific
provision. Attention was drawn to the fact that the site was approximately 50
yards from the village's main playing field and therefore it was considered
that there was sufficient open spaces for the residents of these houses.
Attention
was drawn to the fact that confirmation had been received, prior to the
previous meeting of the Committee, that Llanddeiniolen Community Council were
supportive of the plan.
The
development was acceptable in terms of relevant local and national policies for
the reasons noted in the report.
(b) The local member (not a Member of this Planning Committee),
objected, noting the following main points:
·
That nearby residents objected to the proposal;
·
Acknowledged that there was a decrease from 12 to 8
houses from the previous application, but of the opinion that it was still an
overdevelopment of the site;
·
Approving the development on a site outside the
development boundary would be contrary to the JLDP;
·
Questioned the need and whether the houses would be
affordable;
·
Concerns regarding road safety - there would be an
increase in traffic as a result of the development, with recent accidents
between cars, and collisions with children in the past;
·
A discussion was needed between the Council, the
developer and residents in terms of the best use of the site.
(c) In response to the
local member’s observations, the officers noted:
·
There was no doubt about the need for
this type of housing. The Strategic Housing Unit had confirmed the need, and
Grŵp Cynefin had declared an interest in developing housing on the site;
·
The proposal was not contrary to the
JLDP;
·
The Transportation Unit would not hold
records of collisions between cars, it was a matter for the Police. In terms of
car collisions with children, the Transportation Unit had no record of any
incidents. The development was self-contained with good access therefore the
Transportation Unit had no objection to the proposal.
(ch) It was proposed and seconded to approve the
application.
During the ensuing
discussion, the following main points were noted by members:
·
Concern in terms of the need for four bedroom
housing;
·
That it was important to listen to the local
opinion in terms of the land being polluted;
·
Concern in terms of access and road safety;
·
Concern in terms of flooding risk;
·
That the proposal led to an overdevelopment of the
site;
·
The application for affordable housing was
welcomed, and that there was a need for more social housing;
·
Consideration should be given to changing the road
to be one-way, or to include a footpath to improve the situation in terms of
road safety;
·
That there was a need to listen to the opinion of
the local member, and that the member would vote against approving the application;
·
Concern that the housing would not be affordable;
·
It was a shame that members were intending to vote
against approving the application that would provide affordable housing for
local people;
·
The opinion of the Senior Development Control
Officer - Transport should be accepted, namely that the proposal was in
accordance with the guidance;
·
That the site was outside the development boundary;
·
Were the houses in addition to the number noted in
the JLDP?
·
It would be a mistake to refuse the application -
did not want to accept costs against the Council as a result of an appeal;
·
The need had been proved and the proposal would
enable young families to stay in the area.
(d) In
response to the above observations, the officers noted:
·
That evidence showed that there was a
need for this type of housing and that 100% of the housing were affordable;
·
The affordability of the housing could
be controlled through a 106 Agreement which would ensure that the development complied
with the requirements of affordable housing;
·
That the Senior Development Control
Officer - Transport had confirmed that the proposal was acceptable in terms of
highways. Considerable weight should be given to the officer's opinion,
therefore should the application be refused based on road safety, then the
application would be referred to a cooling-off period.
·
That professional expert information
had been brought forward regarding road safety, therefore should the
application be refused on this basis, there would be a significant risk for the
Council in terms of an appeal;
·
That Policy TAI 16 of the JLDP allowed,
as an exception, the development of housing schemes that were 100% affordable
on sites that were directly adjacent to a development boundary and which formed
a reasonable extension to the village boundary.
·
The application would contribute
towards the need for housing which had been identified within the JLDP.
RESOLVED
to delegate the power to the Senior Planning Manager to approve the application
subject to relevant legal obligations related to ensuring that the eight houses
are affordable for general local need, receiving a confirmation from Natural
Resources Wales and the Public Protection Service that the pollution risk
management report is acceptable, and the relevant planning conditions
involving:
1. The commencement of the
development and submission of reserved matters
2. All materials to be agreed
3. Slate roofs
4. The site lay-out plan to be submitted and
agreed
5. Welsh Water Condition
6. An Invasive Species
Eradication Plan to be submitted, agreed and implemented
7. A landscaping and tree
planting plan to be submitted, agreed and implemented including details of
which trees were to be protected, how these trees will be protected during the
development, and management of these features in the long term
8. Pollution risk management conditions
9. No site clearance work during
the bird nesting season
10. Highway conditions
11. Withdrawal of permitted
development rights.
Notes:
Welsh Water
Natural Resources Wales
Highways
Supporting documents: