Application to vary condition 3 of planning permission
C13/0028/35/AM in order to extend the time given to submit the reserved matters.
LOCAL MEMBER:
COUNCILLOR EIRWYN WILLIAMS
Link
to relevant background documents
Minutes:
Application
to change condition 3 of planning permission C13/0028/35/AM in order to extend
the time granted to submit reserved matters.
(a)
The Development Control Manager elaborated on the
background of the application, noting that it was a full application to amend
condition 3 of outline planning permission C13/0028/35/AM in order to extend
the time granted to submit reserved matters. The development involves erecting
34 sheltered housing units for the elderly, one warden accommodation and two
staff accommodation units, and communal facilities. The proposal would also
provide 18 parking spaces for use by the residential units’ occupiers, and 15
parking spaces for use by the George IV Hotel on the opposite side of the High
Street. The site was located within the development boundary and also within
the Conservation Area.
It was
highlighted that there was no change to the plan, or to the plan previously
approved on appeal. It was highlighted
that the principle of the proposal had already been accepted and established by
the Inspector in his appeal decision, and by means of the further outline
planning permission in order to extend the time. With such application, it was
noted that there was a need to consider whether circumstances or the planning
policy situation had changed since approving the application originally. The
proposal could only be considered differently if there was evidence of a
substantial change in circumstances in the context of these policies. It was noted that a development of this type
corresponded with the Gwynedd Housing Partnership Strategy and the Older People
Commissioning Strategy.
It was
noted that a current Language Statement had been submitted as part of the
application which included specific information regarding the area, the local
population and the impact of the development on relevant matters. The report
acknowledged the importance of the Welsh language and the consideration that
should be given to all relevant issues.
It was
noted that all the relevant matters, including the objections, had been
considered and that the proposal of extending the time granted for outline
application C13/0028/35/AM in order to submit the reserved matters was not
contrary to the local and national policies and guidelines noted in the
assessment. It was noted that no other material planning matters stated
otherwise and that the proposal continued to be acceptable subject to relevant
conditions and as given on the previously approved outline application.
Attention
was drawn to the additional observations that had been received.
(b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector
noted the following points:
·
The application had been
submitted originally in 2009 for 38 flats.
·
The development was
outside the development boundary of Cricieth and that
there was no demand for it
·
Gwynedd Council had refused originally but the
plans had been approved following an appeal
·
There had been no development on the site for seven
year and therefore this proved that there was no demand for such a development
·
A time extension had already been approved in 2013
- no adequate reasons to approve a further time extension
·
There was no intention to develop the site only to
keep the land and to sell it to the highest bidder
·
This was love for money
not love towards the language
(c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the
following points and the valid reasons for the lack of development on the
site:–
·
Different owners from the
original
·
The owner had had to deal with problems with
Japanese knotweed
·
The application submitted was for a time extension
- the policies remained the same
·
Detailed evidence had
been included for the need which had also been acknowledged in the report
·
That the owner was keeping to his word of giving a
contribution of £134k towards affordable housing in the area - this was a
substantial payment
·
The owner was keen to move forward
ch) The local member (a member of this Planning
Committee), noted that he opposed the application for a time extension. Gwynedd
was not for sale.
(d)
Proposed and seconded – to approve the application.
(dd)
During the ensuing discussion, the following points were noted by
individual members:
·
No work had been undertaken on the site therefore was the development
'still live'?
·
Needed current evidence of the need? Was there
other provision in Cricieth for Older People?
·
The developer had had adequate time to take action
·
Suggestion to submit a new application with appropriate
evidence of the need
·
Old application = old history
·
The observations of Cricieth Town Council for
refusing the application must be accepted
·
The situation had changed substantially in seven
years
·
Japanese Knotweed did not take up to three years to eradicate
·
Concern relating to the impact on the Welsh
language - needed a recent language assessment
·
The Housing Strategic Unit's observations were
valid and therefore there was a need to consider planning reasons for refusing
·
The application was an outline one
·
There were no amendments to the plan therefore it would be difficult to
oppose the time extension
(e) In response to the
observations, the Senior Planning Service Manager noted that the circumstances
had not changed and that the policies had not changed. It was stressed that the
report highlighted the current situation with detailed information explaining
that this type of development was needed in Cricieth.
It was highlighted that the agent had submitted valid reasons for the delay.
Members were urged to look at the evidence before them and that the
recommendation noted in the report was robust. On these grounds, it was noted
that there were significant risks to the Council should the application be
refused, including the risk of costs if it went on to an appeal. Consequently,
should the Committee refuse the application; there would be no option but to
refer the application to a cooling off period.
f)
In accordance with the Procedural Rules, the
following vote to approve the
application was registered:
In favour of the
proposal to approve the application, (5) Councillors: Gwen Griffith, Anne T. Lloyd
Jones, June E Marshall, Michael Sol Owen and John Wyn
Williams
Against the
proposal to approve the application, (6) Councillors: Simon Glyn, Eric Merfyn Jones, W Tudor Owen, John Pughe
Roberts, Gruffydd Williams and Owain
Williams
Abstaining, (0)
ff) A Member noted that he
proposed refusing based on lack of current evidence of the need for this type
of development, together with the need to consider a new language impact.
g) In response, the Solicitor noted that
current evidence of the need had been submitted in the report and had been
assessed by the Council's Housing Service.
It was highlighted that those facts were correct.
ng) The proposal was withdrawn.
h) It was proposed and seconded to refuse
the application based on the fact that more information needed to be submitted
regarding linguistic matters.
i) An amendment was proposed
and seconded to defer the decision based on the fact that more information was
needed regarding linguistic matters.
RESOLVED to defer the decision based on the fact that more information was needed regarding linguistic matters.
Supporting documents: