Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and subject to the completion of a Section 106 obligation to secure the payment of a sum of £4,000 to the Council in lieu of the dwelling being ‘affordable’ as defined in the Council’s policies.

            The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 1 September 2014.  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 Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) detailed the background to the report and explained that all matters were reserved but an indicative layout had been provided.  He highlighted the objections from Gwernaffield Community Council and the four letters received from local residents and explained that no objections had been received from statutory consultees.  The main issues were the principle of the development, whether the plot could accommodate a dwelling and the impact the proposed dwelling would have on the character and appearance of the street scene and the considerations were reported in paragraphs 7.14 and 7.15.  The Chief Officer added that the matter of design could be considered at the reserved matters stage but that the plot could accommodate the dwelling proposed in the indicative plan.  He referred to policy HSG3 which allowed development in Category C settlements if it was for the renovation or replacement of an existing dwelling or was to meet proven local need and did not result in over 10% growth since 2000.  Gwernaffield currently had a growth rate of 3.8% and no local need had been identified and it was acknowledged that policy HSG3 may be restricting growth in the area.  He commented on the issue of viability and the reasons why a commuted sum of £4,000 to the Council in lieu of the dwelling being ‘affordable’ would be requested if the application was approved.   

            Mr. D. Lloyd spoke against the application.  He said that the site was on Cothy Farm and had nothing to do with Avondale, which was where he lived.  The site was agricultural land and had cattle grazing on it.  He referred to the number of houses and bungalows for sale in Gwernaffield and raised concern at the need to facilitate another dwelling which he felt was neither wanted nor needed.  In highlighting the triangular section on the map, he queried why this was included in the proposal when it was in the green barrier.  He lived in the bungalow next door and one of his windows was overlooking out on to the site.  It was reported that the window was affected in terms of daylight by a large boundary hedge but Mr. Lloyd said that the hedge could die or be removed.  He added that he wanted to be able to see light from his window, not another dwelling. 

            The Democracy & Governance Manager advised that the Local Member, Councillor Adele Davies-Cooke had a personal and prejudicial interest in the application and had appointed Councillor Jim Falshaw to act as Local Member. 

            Councillor Jim Falshaw proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He said that the site was outside the village boundary and would set a precedent if the application was approved with the green barrier section included in the proposal.  The development should harmonise with the area but he felt that the application did not and the applicant had not identified housing need.  He felt that there should be no significant impact on neighbouring properties but the ridge height at 7m would have an impact.  Church Road was a dangerous road and the proposal was on an unallocated site.  Councillor Falshaw referred to the growth figure of 3.8% for Gwernaffield and said that the self-build project did not demonstrate affordable housing or meet local need.  The proposed dwelling was very close to the boundary of Avondale and in referring to the hedge, he said that this could be removed. 

            Councillor Derek Butler endorsed the comments of Councillor Falshaw and said that he did not see any need for the site to encroach into the green barrier.  He highlighted paragraph 7.10 and spoke of the affordable housing element querying the relevance of practice in Conwy and Snowdonia. He stated that policy should not be made ‘on the hoof’ stating that this should be done through the Planning Strategy Group. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell said that in general terms there were no objections to the proposal but he did object to the inclusion of the triangular part of the application site that was outside the settlement boundary.  He said that the narrow site could accommodate a property but that there was a need for the Committee to see a detailed proposal of what was expected to be on the site rather than an indicative plan.  He felt that the application could not be approved due to the area that was in the open countryside. 

            Councillor Owen Thomas said that the site was not allocated in the Unitary Development Plan but was in the settlement boundary and was therefore acceptable.  He referred to the growth rate in Gwernaffield and the Section 106 payment of £4,000 which he also felt was appropriate.  He said that there was nothing in the policy to refuse the application.  He added that the next door window which had been mentioned would already be dark due to the hedging and therefore a property on this site would not make any difference. 

            Councillor Mike Peers said that he found it difficult to understand why the application was being refused when the growth rate in the Category C settlement of Gwernaffield was only 3.8%.  He felt that the issue of local need had been addressed in paragraph 7.06 and the commuted sum of £4,000 had been agreed by the Council.  He highlighted paragraph 7.16 which indicated that it would be difficult to resist the development on the grounds of highway safety and he added that most of the points raised had been addressed. 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts said that the proposal was an outline application in the settlement boundary.  He commented on the inclusion of the triangular piece of land in the proposal which he said was an element of rounding off which was allowed in exceptional circumstances.  Councillor Richard Jones could not find any reason to refuse the outline application in the settlement boundary.  Councillor Marion Bateman felt that the triangular area should be fenced off and separated and queried whether this could be conditioned. 

            The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) said that the proposal was for refusal but that a condition could be considered if the proposal was lost.  It was an outline application and that it would be difficult to defend at appeal if the reason given for refusal was loss of amenity to the neighbouring property.  He also referred to the viability and HSG3 elements and said that officers had wanted to try and find a pragmatic solution to the application. 

            In summing up, Councillor Falshaw said that his reasons for refusal were that the site was outside the development plan area, encroached on the countryside, there was no proven need for the dwelling, the size of the plot was too small and the proposal was not in keeping with the surrounding area.

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application against officer recommendation was LOST. 

            Councillor Owen Thomas proposed the recommendation of approval which was duly seconded.  Councillor Bateman proposed an amendment to fence off the triangular area.  She referred to an application in Alltami where a precedent had been set on land in the open countryside and permitted development rights had been removed.  The Democracy & Governance Manager said that the removal of permitted development rights was part of the officer recommendation.  Councillor Bateman felt that demarcation needed to form part of the detailed plan. 

            On being put to the vote, there was an equality of voting and the Chairman used his casting vote against the amendment from Councillor Bateman. 

            The Committee then voted on the proposal by Councillor O. Thomas and on being put to the vote was CARRIED.                              

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and subject to the completion of a Section 106 obligation to secure the payment of a sum of £4,000 to the Council in lieu of the dwelling being ‘affordable’ as defined in the Council’s policies.