Outline application for a residential development comprising up to 366 dwelling units, with associated access road, parking and ancillary facilities
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth
Anthony Roberts
Minutes:
Outline
application to construct up to 366 living units with ancillary developments
including an access road, parking spaces and ancillary resources
Attention was drawn to the additional observations
submitted.
(a)
The Senior Planning and Environment Service Manager
expanded upon the background to the application, and outlined that the
application had been submitted to the Planning Committee in December 2015
originally. The decision of that committee was to refuse the application,
contrary to officers' recommendation, on the following grounds
i.
that it would have a detrimental impact on the
Welsh language,
ii.
that there was a lack of evidence regarding how the
infrastructure would cope,
iii.
that sufficient evidence had not been submitted
showing that local schools could cope,
iv.
that there was no evidence showing that the roads
network was sufficient.
As a
result of the Committee's decision, the matter had been referred to a
cooling-off period in accordance with the Committee’s standing orders.
In
response to the concerns raised by the planning committee about the
aforementioned aspects, a report was submitted responding specifically to these
matters. It was highlighted that there was a delay to the response because
additional information had been submitted by an objector, and the applicant,
and the service had decided to undertake a second formal consultation on this
additional information. It was noted that the cooling-off period report
contained an assessment of all the information submitted in the context of the
four reasons for refusal given by the Committee at the meeting in December
2015. Reference was also made to the
full planning report in Appendix 1 which contained an assessment of all the
planning considerations in the context of the relevant planning policies.
(b)
It was reported that the site was located within
the development boundaries of the city of Bangor, and had been designated
specifically for housing in the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan (July 2009)
and therefore the principle of housing on the site was acceptable.
(c)
In the context of the four reasons for refusal
given by the Committee at the meeting in December 2015 the Senior Manager
confirmed :
i.
That a thorough assessment had been undertaken of
all the information submitted in the context of the possible impact on the
Welsh language. The information submitted by the applicant based on a Statement
of Linguistic and Community Impact was in accordance with the requirements of
the Council's planning policies and based on the evidence the development was
in accordance with the relevant planning policies
ii.
Neither Welsh Water nor Natural Resources Wales had
any objection to the application subject to planning conditions and, therefore,
the development was acceptable in terms of infrastructure matters.
iii.
Education matters, in terms of capacity, had been
assessed in accordance with the requirements of the relevant Supplementary
Planning Guidance including input by the Council's Education Department.
Consequently, the developer would provide a financial contribution of £907,018
via a 106 agreement arrangement in order to meet the education needs arising
from the development. Therefore, the development was in accordance with the
relevant policies in terms of education matters.
iv.
Substantial evidence had been submitted and
assessed in the context of transportation matters and consequently the
Council's Transportation Unit did not oppose the application.
(ch) The Senior Manager also referred to
housing availability / need matters which had been included in the cooling-off
period report though this was not a refusal reason. He stressed that the
information in terms of need was important in the context of this application
which provided 366 houses (110 affordable houses) and proved that there was
firm evidence of the need for housing in the area.
(d)
It was stressed that there was no firm evidence to
refuse the application, and based on the information and the evidence submitted
and the responses received, the application was acceptable and complied with
the requirements of the relevant local and national policies and guidance.
Attention was drawn to the risks to the Council of refusing the application and
also the options open to the Committee when determining the application. It was
highlighted that there were substantial risks associated with refusing the
application with financial risks associated with each of the refusal reasons,
because an appeal against refusal would likely lead to a successful application
for costs against the Council as there was no evidence to support the refusal
reasons.
Based
on the evidence, a recommendation was made to approve the application subject
to completing a 106 agreement for affordable housing and a financial
contribution towards education, with relevant conditions as outlined in the
reports.
The
Senior Manager also noted that if the Committee intended to refuse the
application, the proposer and seconder would be expected to represent the
Council to defend an appeal against refusal in accordance with the usual
procedure.
(dd) The local member (not a member of this
Planning Committee), who opposed the application, noted the following main
points:-
·
That the development was a contentious
one
·
That the development was too large and
was unneccessary
·
It was a new village on the outskirts of an
existing community - there was a need to develop and invest in these communities
and not build from scratch
·
Large neighbouring developments, less
than 1km from the site. Over 250 houses were for sale in Bangor at present and
therefore there was no need for more.
·
If it was approved, what would the
implications be? The existing local infrastructure would not cope with the size
of the development and local schools were full. The education contribution was
insufficient.
·
The Council had a duty to protect the
Welsh language and cultural identity
·
Penrhosgarnedd
was a Welsh-speaking area - the only area by now where Welsh was spoken
regularly - the development would certainly have a detrimental impact here
·
The City Council opposed together with many local
residents
(e)
Proposed and seconded – to approve the application.
(f)
During the ensuing discussion, the following main
observations were noted in support of the application:-
·
It must be considered that there was a need for new
high standard houses in Bangor to attract people to work in the area and to
encourage young people to remain locally
·
There was a need for a condition to ensure that the
development was developed in phases so that it was not oppressive
·
Welcomed 110 affordable housing
·
That the site was located within the development
boundary
·
There was a need to comply with the policies of
Gwynedd
·
That the houses were available for Welsh-speakers
to purchase
·
There was no sufficient evidence that student
houses were returning to family use
·
Welcomed the development - of benefit to the people
of Bangor.
(ff) One member suggested considering
a moratorium, namely to temporarily postpone making a decision until such time
as a better procedure for analysing data had been established. It was suggested
that a better methodology was needed when assessing language assessments and
education contribution assessments and to receive a more detailed report
regarding how the information was weighed up. It was outlined that this was a
significant matter in terms of the identity and future of the Welsh language.
In response to the observation, the Senior Solicitor noted that the
Committee did not have the right to request a moratorium or request to adapt
policies. It was explained that, should the application be postponed, it was
likely that it would be referred to appeal due to non-determination.
The Senior Planning
Service Manager noted that Local and National Policies together with
Supplementary Guidance set out definite regulations for the planning procedure
and it was added that the information submitted had been assessed thoroughly
and all the findings had been included in the report within the context of
Gwynedd policies. In the context of education contributions, it was reported
that there were national guidance and formula in order to identify financial
sums corresponding to the need. It was added that the Education Department had
been included in the discussions. It was emphasised that the current Gwynedd
policies had been considered when assessing education and language matters, and
that Gwynedd Council went above and beyond what was required nationally when
assessing linguistic matters.
(g)
The
following main observations were noted opposing the application:
·
That the development was too large and was a threat
to one of the strongholds of the Welsh language in Bangor
·
That the land had not been allocated for
development in the Joint Local Development Plan and therefore the need no
longer existed
·
Although there was a proposal to build in phases,
this would not be viable - it was consolation on paper only
·
It would be foolish to rely on assessments
In response to an observation about the Joint Local Development Plan,
the Senior Solicitor noted that the Joint Local Development Plan had not been
through the Public Inquiry process as yet, and therefore very little weight
could be given to the matter in the context of this application
(ng) In
accordance with the Procedural Rules, the following vote to approve the application
was a registered vote:
In favour (4) Councillors Gwen Griffith, Anne Lloyd Jones, June Marshall and Michael
Sol Owen
Against (10) Councillors Elwyn Edwards, Simon Glyn, Eric M. Jones, Tudor Owen, John
Pughe Roberts, Eirwyn Williams, Gruffydd Williams, Hefin Williams, John Wyn
Williams and Eurig Wyn
Abstaining (0)
(h) It was proposed
and seconded to refuse the application.
(i)
In accordance with the Procedural Rules, the
following vote to refuse the application was a registered vote:
In favour (10) Councillors Elwyn Edwards, Simon Glyn, Eric M. Jones, Tudor Owen, John
Pughe Roberts, Eirwyn Williams, Gruffydd Williams, Hefin Williams, John Wyn
Williams and Eurig Wyn
Against (3) Councillors Gwen Griffith, Anne Lloyd Jones and June Marshall
Abstaining (0)
RESOLVED to refuse
contrary to the officers' recommendation.
Reason:
The Local Planning Authority has not been fully persuaded that the
submitted information proves that there will not be a detrimental effect on the
Welsh Language and it is therefore considered that the application does not
comply with the requirements of Policies A2 and A3 of the Gwynedd Unitary
Development Plan, SPG: Planning and the Welsh Language (November 2009) and
national policy and guidance contained in TAN 20: Planning and the Welsh
Language and within paragraph 4.13 of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 8 January
2016).
It is noted in
that in the context of a possible appeal against refusal, Councillor John Wyn
Williams was the proposer and Councillor Simon Glyn was the seconder.
Supporting documents: