Demolition of a building and construction of a dwelling.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor John Brynmor Hughes
Link to relevant background documents
Minutes:
Demolition of
building and construction of house
(a) The Senior
Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application and
noted that this was an outline application to demolish a building and construct
a new dwelling-house and the only matters that required consideration were the
principle of developing the site together with access. The site was located in the rural village of
Bwlchtocyn in terms of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan, however, in the
proposed Local Development Plan the site is situated in the countryside. It was also located within an Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and a Landscape of Outstanding Historical Interest. The
footprint shown on the indicative plan indicated a house with a ground floor
area of approximately 104m2 and therefore as this would be a two-storey
dwelling the floor area would double to approximately 208m2. The internal floor area would not correspond
to the size of affordable dwellings as recommended in the Supplementary
Planning Guidance - Affordable Housing and therefore the proposal would be
contrary to the requirements of criterion 4 of policy CH5 of the Gwynedd
Unitary Development Plan. It was
considered that the proposal would be acceptable in relation to criterion 5 as
the proposal did not impair the existing natural boundaries.
Additional
observations had also been received in support of the application and these
were submitted separately to Committee members.
In relation to
criterion 6, a request had not been made to the applicant for a Tai Teg
assessment or to sign a 106 agreement that would tie the property as an
affordable house, as it was not considered there was a need for an affordable
house as the applicant owned two other houses adjacent to the application
site. The proposal was considered to be
contrary to relevant policies on the grounds that no local community need for
an affordable house had been proven and that the indicative size of the
property was substantially larger than an affordable house.
Attention was
drawn to the fact that there was a difference in the housing policies in the
Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan and the proposed Local Development Plan. Bwlchtocyn had not been included as a
cluster in the Local Development Plan and therefore the site would be in open
countryside where it would only be possible to develop housing for people
employed in agriculture, forestry or other land-based industry on the
site. The proposal would be contrary to
these requirements as there was no agricultural, forestry or other land-based
need for the proposed house.
In terms of
general and residential amenities, it was considered that a suitably designed
house could be sited on this plot in a way that would not cause significant
harm to the amenities of the local neighbourhood.
Whilst recognising
the applicant's personal circumstances in terms of his son's disability, and
having weighed-up the proposal against the relevant policies, it was noted that
the principle of the development did not meet with the requirements of the
Council's housing policies that require that sites in rural villages are used
to satisfy affordable needs only. No
evidence was submitted to this end. It
was further noted that the Council had not been convinced, based on the
information submitted, that there were worthy reasons to deviate from the
Council's policies or national policies relating to Affordable Housing.
The planning
officers recommended that the application was refused for the reasons stated in
the report.
(b) Taking advantage
of the right to speak, the applicant encouraged the Committee to grant the
outline planning application to construct a home free from planning conditions
and the following main points were noted:-
·
Following her stepson's accident in 2011 there
would come a time when he would be confined to a wheelchair and their current
home Bwthyn y Ffrwd had been adapted for his long-term needs.
·
Her husband's parents lived in the nearby property
namely Glan Ffrwd, and his mother now required increasing care and support
·
The applicant and her husband were eager to build
their own house in order that their son could remain at Bwthyn y Ffrwd without
having to worry about a suitable house when his health deteriorates.
·
If they lived opposite they could offer care to
their son and the parents and as a result could enable four generations of the
family to live in Bwlchtocyn.
·
The committee was asked to make an exception to the
affordable housing policy as they could not afford the development, it would
not be viable to be built and the building costs would be more than the value
of the house and they could not get a mortgage to finance the building work.
·
That the family had considered different
options
·
The son had one child and was keen to extend his
family. If there was an addition to the
family then this would restrict independence and privacy and would lead to
overcrowding of the existing home.
·
The family was eager to remain at Bwlchtocyn with
the applicant's business based on rural agriculture, and as a family they
contributed to the local area and the economy.
·
An appeal was made to the committee to give
favourable consideration to the application as a house without an affordable
condition would enable the family to provide a house for the needs of a local
person and the design would respect the local landscape, amenities and
neighbours' privacy.
·
The circumstances were exceptional for a local need
and key worker.
(c)
The Local Member was not present
(ch) It was asked if it was possible to consider
this application due to the unique circumstances as had been done in a previous
planning committee for a specific application at Rhiw.
(dd) In response, the Senior Planning Service
Manager explained that each application had to be considered on its own merits
and the application mentioned above was an exception. Whilst accepting that the family's wish was
to live close to their son and
parents who require care, the proposed house could not be justified and it would
be very difficult to treat this application as an exception to policy. The only option would be for the Committee to
support a local community need affordable house
on the site based on a 106 agreement and of an affordable size. The Committee's attention was drawn to the
fact that it would not be possible to permit an affordable house at Bwlchtocyn,
not to mention an open market house, following the adoption of the policies of
the new Joint Local Development Plan.
(e) It was proposed and seconded to approve
the application subject to further discussion
with the applicant for an affordable house for local community need with its
size tantamount to an affordable house and signing a Section 106 Agreement.
(f) In response to several enquiries regarding the
needs of the individual, the Senior Solicitor emphasised that an open market house
would not be acceptable on the site under the current policies namely the
Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan. The
only way a house could be approved on this site was to approve an affordable
house for local community need with the matter to be discussed further between
the officers and the applicant together with a Tai Teg assessment. If this was not acceptable to the applicant
then it would be possible to reconsider the application in accordance with the
new planning policies within the Joint Local Development Plan.
(ff) A member noted that he was not comfortable with
demanding that the family should have an affordable house bearing in mind the
difficulties outlined by the applicant in terms of the financial position. It should be recognised that the applicant's
son was himself a father and generations of the same family had lived at the
site in question. It was noted that
the owner of the other two houses was a very active member of the community and
had worked with the Lifeboat, together with his wife, for many years. He had worked from this location throughout
his life and it was not anticipated that he would build the proposed house and
then sell it on. It would be possible to
get a third house on the site by interpreting the exceptional situation namely
that the applicant's parents and his son required care.
(g) In response, the Senior Planning Service
Manager explained that it would be difficult to deal with the application as
exceptional circumstances as there was insufficient evidence and if the
committee were to approve it, there would be no option but to refer the
application to a cooling off period.
(ng)
The Senior Solicitor added, whilst he understood the family's situation and the
fairly profound matters, the committee was in a difficult position. It would be a very dangerous precedent to
approve the application and use the reason that the banks were not willing to
finance / offer a mortgage as grounds for approval. In this context, there was
no direct evidence of the financial position bearing in mind that the
application would be contrary to current policies.
(h) An amendment was proposed and seconded to
approve the application with conditions as it was an exceptional matter
considering the financial complexities but the officers should discuss the size
of the house with the applicant.
(i) A vote was taken on the amendment, however,
it fell.
(j) A vote was taken on the original proposal to
delegate powers to the officers to discuss the matter further with the
applicant in order to agree on a house that was tantamount to the size of an
affordable house for local community need. The applicant / occupier should also
be assessed by Tai Teg in order to establish the need.
Resolved: (a)
To delegate powers to the officers to discuss and agree with the applicant on a
house that was equivalent to the size of an affordable house for local
community need and to approve that house subject to the applicant signing a 106
Agreement that reflects this and to standard conditions.
(b) To request a Tai Teg assessment to
assess the applicant / occupier's needs.
Supporting documents: