Agenda item

Full application for the provision of 29 residential units with associated landscaping, parking, the creation of a new entrance and an area of public open space.

 

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Peter Garlick

 

Link to relevant background documents

Full application to erect 29 residential units together with landscaping, car parking, create a new access and open public area. 

 

(a)     The Planning Manager elaborated on the background to the application and noted that the site was located within the Bontnewydd development boundary and had been specifically designated for housing. Some members had visited the site before the meeting in order to see the site and its surroundings.

 

          It was explained that there was extant planning for 26 houses on the site. Attention was drawn to the fact that the report had been prepared before the Supplementary Planning Guidance relating to Affordable Housing had been adopted on 15 April 2019. It was noted that the development was acceptable in principle as the site had been designated specifically for residential development in the Local Development Plan. It was noted that the most marked change from what had previously been approved, was that the entrance had been relocated from the narrow road that ran up the side of the site; consequently the setting of the houses had been changed within the site. Nevertheless, similarities between the two plans remained.

 

          It was recognised that there had been a change to what had previously been approved but that it was necessary to consider how great the detrimental impact on local and adjacent properties would be. Reference was made to plots 14 to 17 located on the uppermost part of the site. It was noted that full assessments of plots 15 to 17 had concluded that they could be acceptable based on the impact on nearby property, specifically in relation to location and distance from the boundary with the existing nearby property. It was noted that a specific assessment had been made as to whether unacceptable overlooking was likely to result from locating the four houses on this part of the site. It was explained that focus was placed on plot 14 because of the concern of looking into a private area of the adjacent house. It was noted that the developer had changed the original location of the house in question and had moved it forward so that it was 12.5 metres away from the boundary, and had also installed an unconventionally shaped window in order to avoid overlooking, and had moved other windows.

 

          Attention was drawn to additional comments received that included the response of the owner of the adjacent property (Tywyn) to the amendments.

 

          It was noted that the officers believed the amendments made the situation acceptable and that there would not be any unacceptable overlooking, and any overlooking would be across the lower part of the garden and, therefore, not over any private areas.

 

          It was highlighted that the nearby property-owner had expressed concern about the two houses in the centre and the first floor windows of the houses and the impact along the side of his house where the study window and side window of the living room were. They were not considered to be main rooms and that the back garden was the most private area of the adjacent property and that there would not be any unacceptable overlooking. Nevertheless, it had to be noted that the neighbour's concerns remained.

         

          Reference was made to the significant concerns locally about the potential impact of the development on the neighbourhood, bearing in mind that the area and local residents had suffered from the effects of flooding in the past. It was confirmed that this matter had been brought to the developer's attention from the outset and that the developer had been advised that it would be necessary to make clear assurances, through information and specific management measures, that aspects of the development relating to site drainage would not affect residents. It was noted that the intention was to create an area below the public open space that would have specialist equipment that would collect water in purpose built tanks that would then be released into the nearby Afon Beuno.

 

          It was noted that confirmation had been received that the development would not increase the flood risk down the river provided it was carried out in accordance with the agreed details. It was acknowledged that the situation caused concern to residents but that there was no objection to the plan or the proposed water management measures by the relevant bodies, which were the Council's Drainage Unit, Natural Resources Wales, and Welsh Water. 

 

          It was noted that nine of the houses were affordable houses and that a housing association had corresponded confirming, if the application were successful, that they would take on the units. It was noted that the recommendation had been amended from what was noted in the report, and that it was recommended that the affordable houses should be secured through a condition rather than a 106 agreement as it would facilitate the transfer of the units to a housing association.

 

          It was noted, because of the site's drainage requirements and the need to gain access for maintaining equipment beneath the open space, that the developer had confirmed, as with the previous application, that he was willing to make a financial contribution of £6384.60 towards the installation of new playground equipment, or to improve existing equipment at another play area in the village. It was highlighted that the Joint Planning Policy Unit had confirmed that the financial contribution and area of the open space complied with policy.

 

          It was noted that the Education Department had confirmed that there was sufficient capacity at the local school, and confirmation that a Welsh Language Statement would not be necessary as the proposed development would not provide more than the indicative housing provision set out for the settlement in the Local Development Plan.

 

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 and his family lived in Tywyn that would be located next door to plots 14 and 16 for 43 years;

·         That his garden was currently entirely private and that no window would overlook his property as part of the plans approved under the previous application;

·         The proposal meant that the rear of the houses on plots 14, 15 and 16 would face Tywyn; consequently, five top floor windows would overlook his property;

·         The developer had ensured that there would be no overlooking on the estate, his house would be the only house to lose privacy;

·         The developer had submitted an assessment of the overlooking but the bedroom windows had not been assessed;

·         Although efforts had been made to reduce overlooking from plot 14, no efforts had been made to reduce the overlooking from plot 15;

·         The assessments for plots 14 and 15 were inconsistent, both were the same;

·         It would be a small matter to amend the plans to protect their privacy;

·         Although members had visited the site, he invited them to his property to see the situation.

 

(c)     Exercising his right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main points:-

·         An application to erect 26 houses on the site had been approved and the permission had been implemented and was extant;

·         The situation of the housing market in 2009 had been difficult because of the economic recession, over the past seven years houses had been developed in Bangor, Caernarfon, Y Felinheli and Pwllheli;

·         The application plans approved in 2009 were outdated, unsuitable and did not meet demand;

·         The proposal offered improved access and an alternative drainage plan agreed with the Local Authority;

·         The area of the open space was larger;

·         31% of the units were affordable and it was intended to sell the affordable units to a Housing Association;

·         In terms of overlooking and privacy, efforts were made to reduce the impact with a 2.3 metre high fence being erected to mitigate the impact on the ground floor and that the unit in plot 14 had been set farther from the adjacent property and no first floor windows looking into the rear of the adjacent property.

·         The plan would benefit the local area and would provide open market units; prospective buyers had already expressed interest in the units;

·         Local contractors and local sub-contractors would be used where possible and they would endeavour to source materials locally.

 

(ch)   The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) noted the following main points:-

·         He agreed with the objector's comments;

·         In general, there was no local objection to housing on the site;

·         There were concerns relating to flooding and sewerage. Two pumps have existed on Glanrafon Estate since September 2018 and these highlighted the flooding problem;

·         Believed that it would be more appropriate to return the surface water to Afon Gwyrfai rather than Afon Beuno because of the tidal flow and it would give peace of mind to the residents of the Glanrafon Estate and nearby residents;

·         Was of the opinion that it would be better to use the approved entrance within the extant permission, as it would be safer for pedestrians than the proposed entrance since Lôn Cefnwerthyd, following construction of the bypass, would be an access road only.

 

(d)     In response to the comments of the objector and local member, the officers noted:

·         In relation to flooding matters, that paragraph 5.34 of the report explained why it would not be possible to discharge the surface water into Afon Gwyrfai. The water would be released gradually from the underground tanks to retain the current flow. That local concerns had been taken seriously and had been included in discussions with officers from the Drainage Unit, Natural Resources Wales, along with others and confirmation was received that it was an appropriate solution;

·         That Welsh Water was satisfied that the sewerage situation could be acceptable;

·         That the Transportation Unit had confirmed the entrance to be safe, and that a pavement would be created in the direction of the village and on the other side to lead pedestrians before crossing;

·         That the assessment in the report went into detail about the concern of overlooking from plots 14, 15, and 16. The applicant had made substantial amendments to plot 14, which addressed concerns of overlooking. The officers, whilst acknowledging the concerns, believed plots 15 and 16 to be acceptable. If the Committee wished, further discussions could be held with the applicant about plots 15 and 16 in order to find a better solution;

·         With regard to the previously approved entrance, the intention was to widen Lôn Cefnwerthyd at the entrance and remove part of the hedge and wall. The road, once the bypass was complete, would be an access road only. Although a two-way road would better serve local residents, additional traffic to the estate would have to be encouraged to turn at a junction in the village, go down the road to another junction and back down to the site. The proposed entrance would be easier to find and use, and it would be possible to create a footpath and simple crossroad to cross to the Glanrafon Estate, which was the most direct route to the village facilities.

 

(dd)   It was proposed to defer the application in order to hold discussions with the applicant about the locations/design of plots 14, 15 and 16, in order to avoid overlooking. The proposal was seconded.

 

During the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:

 

·         Would the hedge along Lôn Cefnwerthyd be removed?

·         The layout of the flats should be considered and consideration should be given to exchanging the type of unit on plot 13 with the type of unit on plot 18, as this could mean a greater distance between the unit on plot 18 and the adjacent property. Consequently, it would better protect privacy. Did not object to the proposal to develop houses on the site;

·         There was usually flood prevention equipment under the road. Had there been an attempt to avoid installing playground equipment on the open space by installing the equipment under the area? The financial contribution from the applicant toward playground equipment on another site within the village was not sufficient;

·         How many houses had been designated for the site in question in the Local Development Plan?

·         It appeared as though the officers were asking the Committee to go against policy as the number of units was more than 10% greater than what had been designated in the Local Development Plan. That the affordable units, three houses and six flats, did not meet the need but was rather based on profit. The applicant lacked good will in relation to the playground requirements. The application should be deferred in order for officers to explain why the recommendation was made to go against policy and make an unlawful decision;

·         That the 12% increase in the number designated for the site in the plan was excessive;

·         The proposal was an over development of the site and consideration should be given to removing units rather than changing their setting. Confirmation was needed of the location of the gas pipe on site;

·         As regards the capacity of local schools, were there any projections for the numbers of children?

·         Discussions should be held with the applicant, as the overlooking from the development would intrude on the privacy of the adjacent property. The proposal would be an over-development of the site and the financial contribution toward playground equipment on another play area within the village would not be sufficient. The follow up report to the Committee needed to respond to the comments of the Committee;

·         The local member was thanked for his presentation. Discussions should be held with the applicant in relation to the matters of overlooking;

·         Discussions with the applicant about the setting/design of plots 14, 15 and 16 should be reopened and no windows should overlook the rear garden of Tywyn;

·         Considering what could be obtained with the financial contribution, the formula used to calculate the financial contribution was contrary to legislative requirements relating to the rights of children to play safely.

 

(e)     In response to the above observations, the officers noted:

·         Not sure whether the hedge along Lôn Cefnwerthyd would be removed, perhaps the plans gave the impression that it would. A passing place would be created on the road;

·         The site had been designated for approximately 26 units in the Local Development Plan;

·         As noted in paragraph 5.1 of the report, the number of units designated in the Local Development Plan was indicative. There was flexibility and the number could be greater or smaller. The recommendation was not contrary to policy. In terms of the mixture of the size and type of units, the Housing Strategic Unit confirmed that the proposal addressed the need in the area. The proposal would provide a cross-section of houses;

·         If the application were deferred, the subsequent report to the Committee would address the matters raised in terms of the number of units in the context of the Local Development Plan. The recommendation was certainly not unlawful;

·         The Education Department was consulted about the capacity of the local schools, and in accordance with the procedures set out in the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Housing Development and Education Provision, it was not forward looking as it was based at the time of submitting the application;

·         The financial contribution of £6384.60 toward playground equipment was based on a national formula as noted in Supplementary Planning Guidance: Open Spaces in New Housing Developments.

 

            RESOLVED to defer the application.