Agenda item

055310 - A - Full Application - Erection of 24 No. Dwellings with Associated Garages, Parking Garden Areas and Open Spaces with Demolition of Existing Service Station and Outbuildings at Argoed Service Station, Main Road, New Brighton.

Decision:

That the application be deferred to allow clarification of the site area and density in relation to earlier applications and the UDP allocation.

Minutes:

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

 

The officer provided background to the application for the development of a 0.94 hectare site for 24 No. dwellings together with associated highway and infrastructure works.  The application had previously been considered in 2013 and was included in the UDP for the purposes of residential development.  The officer highlighted the potential for bats around the site and said that a survey had been undertaken on which Natural Resources Wales had raised no objections, subject to the appropriate conditions and acquisition of a licence.

 

On behalf of the applicant, Mr. P. Darwin, said that the report benefited from housing allocation and previous permission given for 23 No. dwellings, thus establishing the principles of development on the site and access to the main road.  He said that the development would provide a mix of property types at a scale and density in keeping with the area, which would contribute towards local housing demand.  The site layout had been agreed with officers and followed the principles of the previous scheme.  The site was located within the settlement boundary with easy access to local facilities and no objections had been received.  Mr. Darwin said that this was a deliverable and viable scheme within the settlement boundary and would provide a range of economic benefits including housing, additional Council Tax revenue and S106 contributions.

 

Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the officer recommendation for approval of the application, which was duly seconded.  Whilst he had no objections to the application as it was within the settlement boundary, he asked whether the capacity issues with the sewerage works had been resolved as this had been a factor in the previous application.

 

Councillor Derek Butler spoke about an issue with an adjacent development and traffic in the area, but had no concerns in respect of planning.

 

Councillor Mike Peers pointed out reference in the report to the previous application on the site being determined in March 2011 where the resolution had included provision for contributions in lieu of affordable housing, as this was just below the threshold.  He said that the site was allocated in the UDP for 1.1 hectare, more than that stated in the current application, and that this should provide 25 units invoking the affordable housing element of the policy.  In view of this, he felt that further discussions were needed or a deferral to consider whether 25 units could be provided.

 

Councillor Richard Jones suggested that if the application was agreed, the time limit on the conditions should be changed from six months to twelve months.

 

In response to the question from Councillor Bithell, it was confirmed that a condition had been included in the previous application relating to works at the water station and that this had been completed, hence there had been no objections from Welsh Water to this application.

 

On Cllr Peers’ comments, it was explained that the previous application had invoked affordable housing contributions (HSG10) as it covered the entire UDP allocation for the site.  The Committee had agreed to accept a commuted sum as the developer chose not to make on-site affordable housing provision, however the development did not subsequently come forward.  The current developer did not have full control of the site and the Council could not enforce HSG10 as it was below the 1 hectare threshold.  Information on the density of the development was set out in Sections 7.10-7.12 and included the need for providing access, leading to the conclusion that the proposed density was appropriate.  In addition, the concerns raised by the local community on the previous application, in respect of the location, had also been taken into account and supported the view that more units could not reasonably be included on the site given its orientation.

 

Councillor Peers stressed the importance of affordable housing and felt that the Committee should insist on the applicant providing 25 units within the stated 1.1 hectare to meet this provision under HSG10.  Alternatively, he felt that the item should be refused or deferred for further consideration.  The Service Manager Strategy reminded Members that this was not the same specific site as the UDP allocation and that the application site did not meet the affordable housing threshold.

 

Councillor Richard Jones felt there was a need to clarify the implications and the intentions for the remainder of the site.

 

Councillor Gareth Roberts also spoke in support of the point raised by Councillor Peers and referred to the previous policy for 30 units per hectare which had been changed.

 

Councillor Jones proposed that the item be deferred, which was seconded.

 

In response to these concerns, officers explained that the previous application had been submitted by the owner of the site who had resided in a property on the site.  It was their right to make the remainder of the site available for development, subject to planning requirements.  Officers had recommended approval of the application, having given a balanced view of all the factors including the location and constraints of the site and concluded that the density of the land was not sufficient to refuse it.  The Committee was urged to consider this application on its own merits, separate from the previous scheme.

 

Councillor Peers, having considered the application, failed to see why the site could not accommodate a minimum of 27 units, thus invoking the affordable housing provision for the benefit of local people.

 

Following the proposal by Councillor Jones to defer the item, this was put to the vote and carried.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be deferred to allow clarification of the site area and density in relation to earlier applications and the UDP allocation.

Supporting documents: