Agenda item
Outline application with some reserved matters for constructing 14 dwellings together with the construction of an access and estate road, provision of allotments and associated access and parking.
Local Member: Councillor Sian Gwenllian
Minutes:
An outline application with some reserved matters for constructing 14 dwellings together with the construction of an access and estate road, provision of allotments and associated access and parking.
(a)
The Development Control Senior Officer
elaborated on the background of the application and noted that this was an
outline application to construct 14 houses, create a vehicular access and
estate road along with provision of allotments and associated access and
parking with some reserved matters to be included within a detailed application
(should this outline application be approved). The only matter that formed part
of this outline application was the proposed access and the reserved matters
relating to landscaping, elevations, layout and scale.
The main elements of the application were noted,
namely:
·
The provision of houses to include eight
bungalows, four dormer houses and two two-storey houses and with a
semi-detached layout with four of the houses proposed as affordable houses
·
Creating five allotments and associated parking
spaces on the lower part of the site
·
Creating a new access – to serve the houses
there would be a need to create a new access from the unclassified county road
(Beach Road). To be able to create
the access and secure standard visibility and create a new footpath, the clawdd that
separated the site from the county road would have to be demolished along the
site’s northern boundary.
The relevant policies were elaborated upon and considering the context of
the local policies and guidelines, it was clear that the proposal was not
acceptable in principle and it was contrary to local policies and guidelines
along with the advice included in the Welsh Government’s documents relating to
location, visual amenities, and impact on sites of archaeological importance,
biodiversity and wildlife.
Considering all the assessments, it was the planning officers’
recommendation to refuse the application because it was unacceptable on the
grounds of the principle of developing houses in the location in question,
impact on the listed ancient monument, impact on visual amenities, impact on
road safety and loss of a ‘clawdd’ and a hedge.
(b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
applicant’s Agent noted the following main points:
·
An appeal was made to the Committee to defer
making a determination on the application
·
The application site was adjacent to the
development boundary of Felinheli as outlined in the
Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan.
·
The application proposed 14 houses, four of
which were affordable which equated to 30% of the total
·
There was a wide range of facilities and
services in Felinheli and it was considered that
these were sufficient to support the growth in the population that would be
derived from the proposed development
·
64.3% of
the population of the Felinheli Ward spoke Welsh
compared with 65.4% in Gwynedd.
·
The variety of houses that were proposed was
likely to attract single people, older families and families with children and
the development could have a positive effect on the local primary school by
increasing the number of pupils
·
The number of incomers in the Felinheli Ward had increased from 191 to 280 – 46.6%
between 1991 and 2001, which compared with the increase in Gwynedd of 47.5%
·
There was only a decrease of 2.6 Welsh speakers
between 2001 – 2011 which meant that the incomers were not non-Welsh speakers.
·
The proposal was very attractive in terms of
attracting people to live there because of the facilities available in Felinheli as well as its proximity to Bangor and Caernarfon
·
With Bangor and Caernarfon being important
employment centres, the development would facilitate the proximity of people to
local services and places of employment
·
The percentage of holiday homes was fairly low
in Felinheli compared with the County percentage
which meant that the possibility of using the proposed housing to this end was
fairly low.
(c) The following points were made by the local
member (not a member of this Planning Committee):
·
Felinheli Community
Council had expressed its objection to the proposed development for several
reasons, including that the site was outside the development boundary as noted
in the report of the planning officers
·
As this was an outline application which was
before the committee, there was uncertainty what type of houses were intended
on the site and, therefore, an appeal was made to the Committee not to defer
the application and refuse it because there was no demand for open market
housing in Felinheli at present
·
Some developments which had already been
completed and/or had planning permissions to construct them in the future in Felinheli were listed
·
The proposed development would create an
increase in traffic and create traffic jams in the centre of the village and
there would be a need to widen the road to create a footway to make the site
safe.
·
Reference was made to flooding problems along
with biodiversity issues
·
As a consequence of the lack of local need for
housing, this could lead in turn to an impact on the Welsh language because Felinheli was one of the communities where there was a
reduction of approximately 8% in Welsh speakers since the last Census and,
therefore, the language assessment submitted by the developer cannot be
accepted.
(ch) In response to the above observations, the
Senior Planning Service Manager noted that there was no justification in
deferring the application mainly because the site was outside to the
development boundary together with environmental concerns.
(d) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the
application in accordance with the planning officers’ recommendation.
(dd) In
response to an enquiry by a Member, it was explained that the opinion of the
Joint Planning Policy Unit in point 5.16 had been made as a result of an assessment
submitted and this did not mean that the Unit supported the application but
rather that the information addressed issues in terms of relevant planning
considerations involving language and community issues.
Resolved: To
refuse for the following reasons:-
1. The
proposal is unacceptable in principle and it is contrary to the requirements of
Policies C1, CH7 and CH9 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan and the
Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing and Building New
Houses in the Countryside, Technical Advice Note 2 which deals with Affordable
Housing, Technical Advice Note on Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities,
along with Planning Policy Wales Chapter 9 on Housing as it would mean
constructing new houses in open countryside without justification.
2. The
proposal is contrary to the requirements of Policies B23 and C1 of the Gwynedd
Unitary Development Plan, Supplementary Planning Guidance on Building New
Houses in the Countryside, Gwynedd Design Guidance, and Technical Advice Note
12 on Design, along with Planning Policy Wales, Chapter 9 on Housing, as the
proposal would mean creating an incompatible feature in a sensitive
landscape.
3. The
proposal is contrary to the requirements of Policy B7 of the Gwynedd Unitary
Development Plan, Planning Policy Wales, Chapter 6 and Welsh Office Circular
60/96 as the proposal will have a severe detrimental effect on the setting and
integrity of the registered ancient monument known as the Dinas
Promontory Fort.
4. The
proposal to demolish the existing ‘clawdd’ and hedge
is contrary to the requirements of Policies A1 and B21 of the Gwynedd Unitary
Development Plan, Technical Advice Note 5 on Planning and Nature Conservation
and Planning Policy Wales, Chapter 5 on Protecting and Enhancing the Natural
Heritage and the Coast, as no ecological assessment has been submitted with the
application which would enable the Local Planning Authority to assess in detail
the ecological impacts of the important development which greatly contributes
to the character of the amenities of the area.
5. The
proposal is contrary to the requirements of Policies A1 and CH33 of the Gwynedd
Unitary Development Plan, Technical Advice Note 18 on Transport and Planning
Policy Wales, Chapter 8 on Transport as there is insufficient information based
on a traffic assessment submitted with the application which shows that the
local roads network is able to cope with the increase in traffic that will be
derived from the development.
Supporting documents: