Renewal of planning permission reference C08A/0568/24/LL and
C09A/0532/24/LL for the erection of 24 dwellings including 12 affordable
dwellings, alteration to present access and creation of estate roads (amended
scheme to that originally submitted)
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor
Aeron Maldwyn Jones
Link
to relevant background documents
Minutes:
Renewal of
planning application number C08A/0568/24/LL and C09A/0532/24/LL for the
erection of 24 dwellings, to include 12 affordable houses, alterations to the
existing entrance and the creation of estate roads (amended plan to the plan
originally submitted).
(a) The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application,
noting that the application was deferred at the Committee meeting held on 17
December 2018, to enable an objector to speak on the application and to
undertake a site visit. Some members had visited the site prior to the meeting.
It was explained that the original application had been approved by the
Committee at a meeting on 14 December 2015. It was noted that as the applicant
had delayed signing a legal agreement, the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local
Development Plan (JLDP) had been adopted in July 2017 and as a result there had
been a change in the policy situation. The application had been assessed in
accordance with current policies.
It was noted that the application was for 24 dwellings and 12 of these
would be affordable dwellings. It was highlighted that the need for open market
housing and affordable housing had been confirmed by the relevant bodies, and
the policies supported this, therefore the application was considered to be
acceptable in principle.
Attention was drawn to the objections received from nearby residents on the
grounds of issues such as loss of privacy, noise nuisance and oppressive
structures. It was explained that there was a varied distance of 23-31m between
the rear of the existing houses and the rear of the proposed houses and it was
deemed that this empty space, as well as existing vegetation and the
design/location of the proposed houses, was acceptable on the grounds of
protecting reasonable privacy and overlooking.
Reference was made to the objections received from local residents
regarding the increase in traffic and the lack of footpaths, although these
were recognised, the Transportation Unit had no objection to the proposed
arrangement subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions. It was also
noted that the proposal was acceptable on the grounds of preparing facilities
for parking, travelling and allowing access to the houses themselves, and was
accessible based on its location.
It was noted that the Joint Planning Policy Unit had confirmed that the
size of the open space for the development conformed to the requirements of
Policy ISA5 of the JLDP and the requirements of the Supplementary Planning
Guidance: Housing Developments and Open Spaces of Recreational Value. Although
objections had been received from nearby residents to the location of the open
space, it was considered that the location was acceptable bearing in mind that
there was natural supervision of the space with a large number of houses within
the development and no alternative use could be made of this section of the
site, considering the building limitations due to its proximity to the gas
sub-station and proposed sewage treatment works. It was expanded that if the
open space was relocated then the existing location of the open space could not
be developed for housing, this would entail a reduction in the number of houses
on the site, and could mean that the development would not be viable.
The development was acceptable in terms of relevant local and national
policies for the reasons noted in the report.
(b) Exercising his right to speak, an objector noted the following
main points:-
·
That he represented the
residents of the three dwellings that faced the site;
·
Overlooking into the gardens
of existing houses would stem from the layout of the houses;
·
The windows of the houses
would face the existing dwellings and would have a detrimental impact on
amenities;
·
Access to the existing
dwellings was via a narrow, private road and there was no car turning area;
·
Major concerns about the
development, however, they could be resolved through collaboration;
·
There would be an increase in
the flow of traffic to the access.
(c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent
noted the following main points:-
·
The application had been
altered to comply with the JLDP's policies;
·
That Cartrefi Cymunedol
Gwynedd would develop the site subject to having a planning permission in
place;
·
The proposal included 12
affordable houses as part of the site was outside the boundary, the previous
application was for six affordable houses;
·
That the types of units met
with the need for 2-3 bedroom houses;
·
There was a clear need in the
area for affordable housing, it was not possible to satisfy this need within
the development boundary only;
·
Objections had been received
regarding the location of the open space, it was proposed to install a fence to
prevent climbing together with a hedge surrounding the open space to ensure
safety and provide a measure to protect biodiversity;
·
Although recognising the
objections of local residents in terms of the increase in traffic and that only
a pavement on one side of the road was provided, the Transportation Unit was
satisfied with the proposal.
(ch)
The local member (not a member of this
Planning Committee) made the following main points:-
·
That local people objected to
the proposal in its current form, with the need to look at the number of houses
and the location of the open space;
·
That the Design and Access
Statement looked like a copy of another statement;
·
That the open space was
located near the railway, although the agent noted that a fence to prevent
climbing would be installed, children would find a way of going over or around
the fence;
·
It was asked if the layout of
the site could be looked at again to get an open space near the existing
houses, as originally approved. Together with looking at the location of the
disabled bungalow, as it was far from the main road;
·
That the Transportation Unit
required a pavement either side of the road to the highway as part of the
original permission. A pavement on one side of the road was now acceptable by
the Transportation Unit, although there would be an increase in traffic;
·
That he supported having
houses on the site but not in its current form;
·
That the objections had been
discussed with an officer from Cartrefi Cymunedol Gwynedd, however, he did not
agree;
·
That the proposal meant that
the access road would cut into a private road in order to include an additional
two houses;
·
The open space was for the
whole village;
·
That it was possible to change
the layout of the site to correspond to the wishes of the local community and
ensure the safety of children which was vitally important;
·
To request that the Committee
object the application due to the location of the open space and the location
of the disabled bungalow.
(d)
It was proposed and seconded to
approve the application.
During the ensuing discussion, the following main
observations were noted by members:
·
Asking for an explanation why
it was not possible to build on the land near the gas sub-station;
·
If it was not safe to build on
the land near the gas sub-station, how could the open space be located there?
There were also safety issues on this section of the site as it was near the
railway;
·
That many sites developed for
housing were close to railways. It was not a substantial safety issue as the
risks could be mitigated in terms of trespassing on the railway;
·
If the open space is
relocated, this would mean the loss of land that can be built upon reducing the
number of houses, with a risk of losing the development as it could be
non-viable.
·
In evaluating children's
safety and more housing, that it was necessary to give priority to the safety
of children. The open space should be moved to a safe location in accordance
with the wishes of the community and the local member;
·
That the element of affordable
housing was to be welcomed and the development would help to safeguard schools
and the Welsh language;
·
That the site was ideal to
satisfy the need for housing, however, there was too much risk with the current
layout of the site. It was necessary to consider a reduction in the number of
houses and the risk to life;
·
Concern regarding the access,
if the application was approved, the maximum speed limit on the highway should
be reduced from 60mph to 30mph.
(dd)
In response to the above observations,
the officers noted:
·
That the applicant
had received information from the Building Control Unit regarding building
restrictions on the land near the gas sub-station;
·
That there were
two fences surrounding the gas sub-station and it was a secured structure.
There were fences similar to those proposed by the applicant, near Network Rail
assets;
·
That the open
space was more than what was required, therefore there was an option to get a
buffer and a fence in addition to the fence proposed by the applicant;
·
The site was
currently an open field, there was nothing to stop children from playing on the
land near the railway.
(e) An amendment was proposed that two fences were installed between
the open space and the site's boundary. A vote was taken on the amendment, and
the amendment fell.
During
the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:
·
Having lived close to a busy
railway for 17 years, there had been no incident in terms of safety during that
period. The risk in terms of trespassing on the railway could be mitigated, an
opportunity had been lost by not supporting the amendment;
·
An additional risk of children
playing around e.g. throwing objects at the trains;
·
That the proposal was an
over-development of the site. Not against the principle of developing the site
for housing, however, there were concerns regarding safety in the context of
the gas sub-station and the railway.
(f)
In response to the above
observations, the officers noted:
·
The situation in
terms of safety was a matter of evidence, with a need to evaluate the risk. The
alterations mentioned by some members to the layout of the site were
substantial amendments that would likely mean refusing the application, reasons
would be required if it was proposed to refuse the application. It should be
ensured that there was evidence in terms of the risk attached to the location
of the open space as this could impact on the principle of the development;
·
There was a
previous permission to develop housing on the application site and it was
difficult to see any reason for refusal without there being a risk for the
Council in terms of an appeal;
·
No response had
been received from the Welsh Highland Railway and it was likely that they had
no objection to the proposal;
·
If the applicant
proposed to change the layout of the site then the layout would have been
amended following the discussions;
·
The number of
houses per hectare met with the required standard, with extensive gardens and a
parking area for the houses. There was concern if the application was refused
on the grounds of an over-development.
(g) The members voted on the
proposal to approve the application, the proposal fell.
It was proposed to refuse the application as the
layout of the site was unsuitable with the open space in the incorrect location
due to its proximity to the gas sub-station and the railway.
The Planning Manager reminded the members that if
there was an appeal then the proposer and the seconder would present the case
in an appeal.
In response to the comment, the proposer noted that
all the evidence in the context of the gas sub-station had not been submitted
to the Committee.
The proposal was seconded.
The Planning Manager noted that due to the risk to
the Council in terms of an appeal, that consideration should be given to defer
the application in order to conduct further discussions with Cartrefi Cymunedol
Gwynedd. She expanded that despite there being a risk of appeal due to the lack
of decision and a risk of no housing development on the site due to the failure
to secure a grant, it would be wise for the Committee to defer the application in
order to conduct further discussions.
It was proposed to defer the application in order
to conduct further discussions. The proposer withdrew his proposal to refuse
the application and seconded the proposal to defer.
RESOLVED to defer the application.
Supporting documents: