Residential Development of 17 houses (including two affordable units) together with a new access
Local Member: Councillor Elfed Wyn Williams
Minutes:
An outline
application for a residential development of 17 houses (including two affordable
units), along with a new access.
(a)
The Committee was reminded by the Senior
Planning Service Manager that this application had been submitted to the
Planning Committee on 02.03.15 and it was the Committee’s intention to refuse
the application contrary to the officers’ recommendation on the basis of two
reasons, namely, over-development and lack of a play area provision. In
the opinion of the Senior Planning Service Manager, since there was a
significant risk to the Council in respect of the decision to refuse the
application contrary to officers’ recommendation, the matter was referred to a
cooling off period in accordance with the Committee’s standing orders. The purpose of reporting back to the
Committee was to highlight the planning policy issues, the possible risks and
the possible options for the Committee before it reached a final decision on
the application.
The background of the application was expanded upon and it was noted that
this was an outline application to construct 17 two-storey houses including two
affordable houses on a site to the south-west of Deiniolen/Clwt-y-bont on a plot of
brownfield land included within the development boundary of the village. The proposal also involved
constructing a vehicular access to the adjoining class III county road.
Previously, the International Safety Components factory was located on the
site, but by now, the site had been cleared of the former climbing goods
production factory's structure. At
present, the front of the site was used as an informal parking space.
A previous application for 17 houses (including two affordable houses)
was approved in July, 2010 with a Section 106 agreement to bind two of the 17
houses as affordable houses. However, no reserved details application was
submitted within the statutory period and the permission had now lapsed.
Attention was drawn to the concerns highlighted by the
Committee regarding refusing the application based on over-development, the
provision of a play area and affordable houses.
It was further explained that from the perspective of over-development,
there was no increase in the number of houses proposed in this latest
application compared with the application approved in 2010. It was explained
that the relevant policy expressed that developments of up to 30 houses per
hectare of land could be approved and the application before the committee
sought 17 houses with a density of 24 houses per hectare. Therefore, it was noted that the density was
less than stipulated in the planning policy. To respond to the concern
regarding the danger for children walking to nearby playing fields because of
the lack of a pavement along the road, the applicant had amended the site plan
to include a provision of a play area in the north-eastern corner of the
application site to create a safe play area for the children. The estimated
sale/market values of the houses had been submitted and it was considered that
the prices were affordable compared with the average house price figures in Deiniolen/Clwt y Bont.
Reference was made to the relevant
planning policies.
The risks to the Council of refusing
the application were elaborated upon and the options for the Committee should
the application be refused were outlined and it was emphasised that they were
substantial risks which included financial risks for the Council. To ensure
that the Council avoided these risks, the planning officers recommended
approving the application subject to completing a 106 agreement to ensure that
two of the houses were affordable houses and in accordance with relevant
planning conditions, to include a condition involving the maintenance work on
the play area in future and the provision of play equipment.
(b)
The Local Member noted his objection to the
development because:
·
The proposed area earmarked to create a play
area was unsuitable as there was a difference in ground level and there was a
need to ensure more than a piece of land, such as a financial contribution for
play equipment via a 106 agreement which had been undertaken in several other
places.
·
The report referred to an empty site but in the
Member’s opinion, this was incorrect as it was used as a safe compound for
building equipment.
·
In terms of the average house prices in Deiniolen, it was found on the Internet that six out of
eight houses in Deiniolen/Clwt
y Bont were for sale for less than £100,000.
·
In point 3.4 of the report, reference was made
to Planning Policy Wales, which noted the need for affordable housing to integrate
with the existing pattern but it was noted that this site was separate and
there were other individual detached houses nearby but not an estate as
proposed and it would be more intrusive than any other houses nearby.
·
It was not agreed that clear evidence had been
submitted to support the application and, therefore it did not conform to the
policies.
·
The response of the Planning Policy Unit was
superficial in terms of policy A2 of the GUDP because without evidence how could the language statement be assessed.
·
In point 3.25, it was noted that robust evidence
had to be submitted to overturn officers’ recommendation but the Member was of
the opinion that there was insufficient robust evidence before the committee to
justify the need for the houses.
·
In point 4.1, reference was made that re-using a
site was supported and also the construction of houses within the boundary but
the Member was of the opinion that every site was not suitable in every case
and every application had to be considered on its merits.
·
Examples of empty houses across the ward were
listed – those being constructed, permissions approved and applications to be
submitted in the future.
·
There were concerns regarding the condition of
the road in front of the development and should the application be approved
this would mean an increase in traffic on the road.
(c)
In response to these observations, the Senior
Planning Service Manager noted that:
·
Two reasons had been given by the Planning
Committee on 2 March 2015, for refusing the application, namely,
over-development and lack of a play area provision.
·
The matters involving the need and the language
assessment had already been discussed in detail.
·
It was an outline application that was before
the committee and condition Number 8 in the report would address the need to
agree on the details in terms of what was being proposed as part of the open
space.
(ch) The Development Control Senior Engineer added
that in terms of the roads network that the condition of the road was
irrelevant in terms of the decision to approve the application. He was of the opinion that the location of
the proposed development was advantageous from the perspective of public transport.
(d)
It was proposed and seconded that the
application be approved in accordance with the officers’ recommendation.
(dd) During
the ensuing discussion the following points were made by individual Members:
·
Concern regarding the lack of information on
language and community issues and they should be a central part of applications
·
Concern regarding the safety of the public
walking along the road as it would not be possible to construct a pavement
along the road
·
The permission granted in 2010 was not
relevant
·
Whilst sympathising with the Local Member, it
would be difficult to refuse the application because the land was within the
development boundary of the village and complied with all planning policies and
the only concern foreseen was the suitability of the play area and emphasis
should be placed on the need to have play equipment and not to leave it as an
open space.
(e) In response to these
observations, the Senior Planning Service Manager noted that:
·
A language statement had been submitted with the
application; its contents had received full consideration by the Joint Planning
Policy Unit and the response of the Joint Planning Policy Unit had been
included in the report to the Planning Committee. This information was
available on the Council Website. In addition, full information involving the
application was on the file which was available to Members to see prior to
and/or during the Planning Committee. If
it was not possible for Members to have access to the Internet, appropriate
officers of the Planning Unit would be more than willing to assist and/or send
a link to the correct address.
·
Details regarding safety would be included as
part of the full application
·
The permission granted in 2010 by the Arfon Planning Committee was relevant because it was part
of the planning history of the application and this should be given
consideration
·
The applicant had offered to provide a play area
and this could be secured by means of an additional condition and more detailed
information would be received when the full application was submitted for
consideration. It was emphasised that a
request could not be made for more details with this application because it was
an outline application to agree in principle to the provision of a play area.
(f) An amendment to defer making a decision on
the application was proposed and
seconded so that Members could receive information regarding the
language assessment.
(ff)
The Head of Legal Services reminded members that
the Planning Committee had refused the application at its meeting on 2 March
2015, based on two reasons only, namely, an over-development and the provision
of a play area and the application had not been refused on the basis of the
lack of a language assessment. It was added that if the application was
deferred, exactly the same report would be submitted at the next meeting of the
Planning Committee.
A vote was taken on the amendment to
postpone making a decision on the application and the vote was carried.
Resolved:
To defer making a decision on the application so that Members can receive
information regarding the language assessment.
Supporting documents: