Agenda item

That the application be deferred for the Committee to receive additional information on:-

            - affordability

            - housing need

            - backland/tandem development

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the application had been considered under policy HSG3 as the growth figure for Ewloe had exceeded 15%, the property had to meet local need.  The proposal complied with space around dwellings and the access and parking complied with policy.  Additional conditions were reported in the late observations which included the removal of permitted development rights.  The recommendation included being subject to a section 106 obligation that the property should be occupied by the applicants and that 30% of the value of the property be repaid to the Council upon sale of the property. 

            Mr. I. Warlow spoke against the application and said that he moved into the property in 2010 and that it had a large garden which was not overlooked.  He said that the proposed dwelling would overlook rooms in his property and would affect the privacy of him and his family and light pollution would also be extensive.  Mr. Warlow said that the applicant had agreed his request to reduce the hedge height to two metres but if it was reduced, it would create additional light pollution and his property would be more overlooked.  He referred to two previous applications in 2005 for seven starter homes and six starter homes on the site, both of which had been refused.  Mr. Warlow raised concern about potential parking on the highway and said that he also felt that the proposal amounted to overdevelopment of the site.  He said that the application should be refused on the grounds of loss of privacy, noise and light disturbance, loss of nature and increase in traffic. 

            Mr. C. Shaw, the applicant, spoke in support of the application, and said that he and his family had lived in the area for 15 years.  He said that the application was for an affordable property for himself and his family to live in and would comply with policy HSG3.  He felt that the garden was a wasted space and that a great deal of thought had been put into the type of property he would like to build.  He said that the proposal complied with GEN 1 and the ground floor ridge line was similar to that of 35 and 37 Wood Lane.  Mr. Shaw said that there would be a minimum of 3 parking spaces for number 37 and 4 spaces for the new property so there would be no need for parking on the highway; he referred to policies AC13 and AC18.  He added that if the hedge height was reduced, the proposed dwelling would have more of an impact on the neighbouring properties.  Mr. Shaw said that the proposal also complied with policies D1 and D2.                  

            Councillor Alison Halford proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  She said that new information had come to light and if it was taken at face value, it could affect the information contained within the report as the section 106 obligation may not match what the application might wish for.  The Democracy & Governance Manager reminded Members that if the Section 106 obligation was not signed, then the Head of Planning had delegated authority to refuse the application.  Councillor Halford queried the information in paragraph 7.07 and asked for clarification on the financial circumstances of the applicant.  The Planning Strategy Manager said that it appeared that the criteria for affordable housing need had been applied and complied with and that the application for the affordable housing need had been through the process through a registered social landlord.  The applicant would have to sign the Section 106 obligation if the application was approved before being able to commence development and if the applicant was to sell the property, then the Council would receive 30% of the value. 

            Councillor Halford said that the section 106 obligation did not indicate that the applicant had to sell 37 Wood Lane and raised concern that the applicant could keep the property and still build the new property in his back garden.  The Planning Strategy Manager explained that it was difficult for officers to comment on the information that Councillor Halford had received because it had not been shared with officers.  Following a discussion, it was decided that the meeting be adjourned to allow Councillor Halford to discuss the information with the officers. 

            The Housing Strategy Manager provided details of qualification for the Affordable Housing Register which was administered by Cymdeithas Tai Clwyd and said that the income, outgoings and size of mortgage was considered in their calculations so as far as access onto the affordable housing register was concerned, the applicant’s finances had been considered.  The Planning Strategy Manager said that the applicant had qualified for inclusion on the register and therefore approval of the application was reported. 

            Following the adjournment, Councillor Halford thanked the officers for the opportunity to discuss the additional information with them and reiterated her proposal for refusal of the application.  She commented on the growth of 18% in Ewloe and her concerns about the applicant being able to continue to live in his current property and still build the new dwelling.  She felt that the conditions did not cover the circumstances of the application and added that the size of the new house and garage would reduce the amount of sunlight onto the property and garden of number 35. 

            Councillor Owen Thomas sought clarification on tandem development and said that he felt that the application did not comply with policy.  He said that the property should be for a small affordable home not a four bedroom property and raised concern that it was recommended for approval even though there was growth of over 18% in the area. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell felt that it was backland development and tandem development and he shared the concerns of previous speakers about the size of the property.  He said that the policy for affordable housing was for first time buyers not for applicants who already had their own home and he queried whether the fact that the applicant could not afford the mortgage on his current property necessitated the building of a new property.  Councillor Bithell felt that a cheaper property could be purchased by the applicant when his current home was sold without the need to build a new dwelling in his garden.  He added that he felt that there was no local need. 

            Councillor Richard Jones said that there was a need to consider whether the principle of development had been established and whether the applicant met the affordable housing criteria.  He said that he had questioned how housing need could be accepted if the applicant had a home already but said that the Committee had no other choice than to approve the application as it did meet the principle of development and the affordable housing criteria. 

            Councillor Mike Peers agreed and said that it was not for the Committee to judge whether the applicant should be on the affordable housing register and what size property he could build.  However he raised concern about backland development and asked for clarification on this and on how the affordable housing criteria had been applied. 

            Councillor Derek Butler suggested that the application be deferred for the Committee to receive further information on backland or tandem development and on the affordable housing criteria.  The proposal to defer the application was duly seconded.  Councillor Bithell welcomed the deferment to receive additional information but Councillor Jones felt that the information was already before the Committee. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to defer the application for further information on affordability, housing need and backland/tandem development was CARRIED.                          

 RESOLVED:

That the application be deferred for the Committee to receive additional information on:-

            - affordability

            - housing need

            - backland/tandem development