Erection of three detached two storey dwellings and associated developments.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Elfed W. Williams
Minutes:
Construction of three two-storey detached dwellings
and associated developments.
(a) The
Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the application and
noted that the application site was brownland within
the development boundary of the village of Clwt y Bont. It was noted that it was proposed to construct three
two-storey houses with four bedrooms on the site for the open market with a
separate access to the three properties and each one would lead to an
unclassified road that served a number of dwellings.
Attention was drawn to the additional observations that had been
received.
It
was noted that the main consideration was Policy CH4 which approved proposals
for the construction of new dwellings on unallocated sites located within
village development boundaries, provided they conformed to all the relevant
policies of the Plan and the three criteria which formed part of the Policy.
Attention was drawn to the fact that criterion 1 related to having a proportion
of all units on the site as affordable units, unless it would be inappropriate
to provide affordable housing on the site. The Supporting Planning Statement
(supported by the Viability Calculations) explains that it was not viable to
offer an affordable element as part of the scheme.
It
was noted that several allegations had been made that the land had been
contaminated by waste such as old cars and Policy B30 suggested that
applications on contaminated land should be refused in the absence of
information showing acceptable treatment of the site. However, no firm evidence had been submitted
to support the allegations of unstable land or any contamination hazards and
none of the official agencies that had been consulted had raised these issues.
Should the application be approved, it was recommended to impose an additional
condition to ensure that a desk-top study was undertaken to assess the risk of
contamination on the site and that any further action required should take
place prior to the development of the site. In addition, a condition was
recommended requesting agreement on the details of any engineering work
involving changing the levels of any part of the site, especially the boundary
treatments.
It
was confirmed that the objections received did not outweigh relevant policy
considerations or material planning issues. The development complied with the
GUDP for the reasons noted in the report.
(b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted the
following main points:-
·
That it was an inappropriate development on
inappropriate land;
·
Concerns regarding land stability;
·
That noting that the site was not contaminated was
deliberately misleading considering that materials such as cars, batteries and
asbestos had been tipped on the land;
·
That Japanese knotweed grew on the site;
·
Concern that the development would ruin the heart
of the historical village;
·
That a legal question arose in terms of the
neighbours being joint-signatories to any application for developing this site
considering that tipping had taken place on their land also.
(c) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main
points:-
·
That the applicant had received pre-application
advice from officers and that the observations had been considered;
·
That the houses would be located a suitable
distance from nearby houses and that the design and setting of the proposal
would ensure that there would be no impact on general or residential amenities;
·
That the development would only create a few
additional vehicular movements and that the Transportation Unit did not have
any objection based on the safety of roads and streets;
·
That the concerns of nearby residents in terms of
land stability was associated with nearby property rather than the site itself;
·
That there was no evidence in terms of land
stability and that appropriate steps had been set out in the design to
safeguard the slope on the outskirts of the site that would be managed by the
Building Control process;
·
That there was no
evidence that the land was contaminated; however, the applicant was prepared to
accept a condition in terms of dealing with any contamination if required.
(ch) The local member (not a member of this
Planning Committee) noted the following main points:-
·
That the proposal was contrary to policy B23 and
B28 of the GUDP;
·
No affordable element had been included
in the proposal and insufficient evidence had been submitted to justify not
including an affordable house;
·
The prices of the houses would be
higher than what local people could afford;
·
Concerns in terms of road safety and
suggested that the road should be widened;
·
That other applications for houses that
had been approved in the area had remained undeveloped.
(d) In response to the observations, the Senior Planning Service Manager
noted that:-
·
There was no evidence that the land was unstable;
·
The figures provided by the applicant had been the
subject of analysis by the Joint Planning Policy Unit using Gwynedd Council's
standard methodology for assessing the viability of proposed developments and
it was concluded that this development would not be economically viable if it
included an element of affordable housing;
·
The Transportation Unit did not object to the
proposal.
(dd) A proposal to undertake a site visit was
made and seconded.
During
the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted:
·
That the roads were narrow and that the concerns of
the local people should be considered when visiting the site;
·
Could the plausibility of the house prices be
confirmed?
·
That the houses would not be affordable to local
people considering the average salaries in the local area;
·
That it should be considered that difficulties were
being experienced when attempting to sell new houses in Deiniolen.
(e) In response to these observations, the
Senior Planning Service Manager noted that:-
·
That the Joint Planning Policy Unit had used a
computer package used nationally to assess the viability of proposed housing
developments and it had been concluded that the development would not be
economically viable should it include an element of affordable housing;
·
That the Property Section had noted that the
building costs shown by the applicant were appropriate in this case and
consistent with other developments in the locality;
·
That it would be very difficult to justify refusing
the application on the grounds that there was no need for housing as there was
no evidence of that.
RESOLVED to undertake a site visit.
Supporting documents: