Residential development for 9 affordable dwellings and new accesses
LOCAL MEMBER Councillor Elfed Wyn Williams
Minutes:
Residential development for nine affordable dwellings
and new accesses
The
Members had visited the site.
(a) The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the
application and noted that it was a full application to erect nine affordable houses
on a sloping green-field site abutting the development boundary of Deiniolen. The development would have six two-bedroom units
and two three-bedroom units and a five-bedroom bungalow designed to meet the
needs of a specific local family.
The intention to provide nine affordable houses on the site
(100%) was noted, and it was mentioned that the Council's Strategic Housing
Unit had confirmed that this number of houses along with the type of house
addressed the needs in the area. It was added that a Registered Social Landlord
would provide the houses and the current housing needs register (October 2018)
showed a need in the community for two-bedroom and three-bedroom houses, and
there were 33 applicants on the waiting list for these types of units.
Reference was made to Policy TAI 6 (Exception Sites), which
noted that development directly abutting development boundaries must be 100%
affordable. It was also noted in the Policy that it was a requirement to show
that affordable housing cannot be supplied within a reasonable time-scale on an
open market site within the development boundary where there is demand for
affordable houses. It was highlighted that no affordable housing units had been
constructed in Deiniolen between 2011 and 2018 and
although two sites had been approved where an element of affordable housing had
been included, the construction work had not commenced on any of the proposals
thus far. Reference was made to an explanation from the agent, noted under
paragraph 5.6 in the report, explaining the reason that they were unable to
provide the housing.
Reference was made to an observation by objectors that the
affordability of the existing houses available within the development boundary
must be considered before determining the application before the Committee.
However, in considering that the houses within the boundary were open market
houses, they would not meet the same needs as the houses proposed here, namely
social rent houses that had been designed to meet Design Quality Requirements
(DQR). Since this plan abutted a development boundary, it was considered that
the development addressed local need for social rental housing, as confirmed by
the Council's Strategic Housing Unit. It was believed that the principle of the
plan met the requirements of Policy TAI 8 and TAI 16 of the Local Development
Plan and would contribute toward the target set in Policy PS 18.
It was emphasised that other aspects of the proposal were
acceptable and, although there had been some confusion amongst the local
community regarding the traffic collision assessment, it was highlighted that
an internal assessment had been carried out, rather than an assessment for the
purposes of this application. It was added that the Transportation Unit has no
objection to the proposal.
In the context of drainage matters, a response was received
from the Land Drainage Unit/Gwynedd Consultancy, enquiring about some elements
of the Drainage Strategy before they can provide a firm opinion on the plan. It
was noted that these discussions were ongoing and that the Land Drainage
Unit/Gwynedd Consultancy had confirmed that they were confident that a
potential solution was available on the site.
(b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted the
following main points:
·
That he accepted the
need for housing, but that the site was unsuitable
·
That the roads leading
to the site were unsuitable and insufficient - poor condition and very narrow
·
That there was no
response to a traffic collision assessment in the report, therefore the process
had not been transparent
·
That a previous
application from a private applicant had been refused, therefore why was a
Registered Social Landlord receiving permission?
·
The underground tanks
were unreliable - needed a full assessment of the capacity due to flood risks.
The water system was insufficient for the existing infrastructure
(c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s
representative noted the following main points:
·
That the development on
an exception site offered 100% affordable housing
·
In response to
transportation concerns, long-term improvements would be made to the road, with
the creation of a new footpath
·
That each property
would have two parking spaces - this met the statutory requirements
·
That the development
had a good mixture of housing
·
It would enable tenants
to move so that they were not penalised with empty bedroom taxes
(ch) The local member
(not a member of this Planning Committee) made the following main points:
·
That a similar application had been refused for
a housing development due to the condition of the road. Therefore, why was
there a recommendation to approve here. Accepted amendments, but the road was
still narrow
·
An application for nine houses - there would
clearly be further applications in future, therefore there was a need to
improve transportation issues. That the number was low in order to offer the
development in two phases
·
Why was the site not included within the
development boundary when the Local Development Plan was adopted in 2017?
·
Two other sites were designated (the total of
live housing approvals was 53) - this would increase to 62, which would be too
much for the village
·
A previous application was refused in Clwt y Bont for 12 houses as it
was outside the boundary - no justification or consistency
·
The general statement was 'need housing
locally' - there was no confirmation that the people of Deiniolen
and Clwt y Bont would
receive the houses - needed information that would confirm the need
·
Houses were already for sale at an affordable
price in the village
·
No evidence that the applicant had discussed
with the other two sites - no excuse that development was required outside the
boundary
·
That the layout of the houses were out of
character - some were overlooking
·
That there were land drainage problems
·
Disappointed with the application and therefore
refused
(d) It was proposed and seconded to approve
the application
(dd) During
the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:
·
That this was a good
opportunity for local people, and it had been submitted in response to the need
for social housing
·
Although it was outside
the development boundary, the development satisfied the need
·
A new exit would be
created to mitigate infrastructure concerns
·
The site was unsuitable
·
Deiniolen had been the subject of a number of housing applications; live
applications had not been developed
·
That overlooking
matters needed to be considered further
RESOLVED to delegate powers to the Senior Planning
Manager to approve the application, subject to confirmation from the Land
Drainage Unit that the arrangements for land drainage are acceptable, and also
to ensure that there is no unacceptable overlooking between Plot 1 and the
nearby Tan y Caerau:
1. The
commencement time of the development
2. Development in strict accordance with
the plans
3. Slate roofs
4. Welsh Water Condition
5. The
landscaping plan must be implemented and trees must be protected in the long
term
6. The
houses must be affordable in perpetuity
7. Withdrawal
of permitted development rights
8. Drainage
conditions as required
Supporting documents: