Construction of affordable house.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Angela Russell
Minutes:
Construction of an
affordable house.
(a) The
Senior Development Control Officer expanded on the application's background and
noted that the JLDP's proposals maps for the village of Llanbedrog
indicated that the site lies outside the village development boundary and it
was considered that this was tantamount to erecting a new house in the
countryside. Despite the applicant's arguments, officers were not convinced,
based on the information submitted, that the site formed a reasonable extension
to the village development boundary.
It
was noted that details and evidence had been submitted to show that the
applicant needed an affordable house and confirming they were willing to accept
an obligation through a Section 106 legal agreement to restrict the occupancy
and value of the house should it be sold in future to ensure that it remained
an affordable house.
Attention was drawn to the additional observations
received and it was noted that the applicant had submitted amended plans
reducing the floor area of the house to 100m2.
It
was noted that it was likely that erecting a house on the site would not create
a development that would have a significant harmful impact on the wider
landscape. It was explained that currently the site was part of a larger
agricultural field which extended to the nearby coastline and which offered
privacy and tranquillity to the occupants of the two nearby existing dwellings.
It
appeared that the proposed plot and the proposed house had been squeezed as
close as possible to the development boundary to try and meet the policy
requirements and this created a narrow site and an unacceptable development and
it was considered that it would not create a reasonable extension to the settlement.
It was therefore felt that approving the application would cause an element of
disturbance for the neighbour due to the activities related to the residential
use of a new property and coming and going from the plot, therefore the
proposal was contrary to policy PCYFF 2 and PCYFF 3 of the JLDP.
It
was noted that the plan indicated that it was intended to create a vehicular
access to the north along the site's boundary in order to connect to a private
access road within a nearby estate of 12 affordable homes. It is not considered
that using the estate road as an access to serve one additional house would
affect road safety.
It
was recommended that application should be refused on the grounds of:
·
That the proposal was contrary to PCYFF 1 of the JLDP
relating to sites forming a reasonable extension to the village development
boundary;
·
Approving the application would cause unacceptable
disturbance and would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of nearby
residents.
(b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, an
objector noted the following main points:-
·
She agreed with the officers' observations and they
had submitted a report to the Planning Service that came to the same
conclusions as the officers;
·
That there was no evidence in terms of the need for
an affordable house;
·
Questioned if the house would be affordable due to
its size, location and design;
·
Questioned the price of
£250,000 for the completed house.
(c) Taking advantage of the opportunity to
speak, the applicant noted the following points:-
·
That she had submitted information to the Planning
Service in response to the report before them;
·
That she was returning to the village for her child
to receive Welsh medium education and to be brought up in a Welsh society close
to his family;
·
That it was difficult to get an affordable house
due to local house prices with a high number of holiday homes in the village;
·
That Llanbedrog Community
Council supported the proposal and no objection had been received from the
residents of Cysgod y Cwmwd
estate.
·
That she had submitted
amended plans that reduced the house size;
·
That there would not be
much more disturbance as a result of the development;
·
Approving the application would help a family to
come back to their native area.
(ch) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the
application.
A member noted that in principle he wanted to
support the application, however, when considering the contents of the report
it appeared that the house would not be suitable as an affordable house. In
response, the Senior Development Control Officer noted that the applicant had
submitted amended plans and they complied with the requirements in terms of the
size of the affordable house.
The Senior Planning Service Manager suggested that
as matters had arisen in terms of location and the relationship of the house
with nearby houses, and the impact on residential amenities, consideration
should be given to conducting a site visit.
An amendment was proposed to defer the application
in order to conduct a site visit and to receive information regarding the
development boundary. The amendment was seconded.
A member noted that the size of the house had been
reduced to comply with the requirements in terms of the size of an affordable
house and that he was in favour of approving the application.
RESOLVED to defer the application in order to conduct a site visit and to receive information regarding the development boundary.
Supporting documents: