Agenda item

That planning permission be refused, against officer recommendation, on the grounds of lack of provision of affordable housing; insufficient level of residential density and an inappropriate mix of housing type. 

After the vote had been taken, Councillor Hilary McGuill returned to the meeting and was advised of the decision by the Chairman.

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.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.  Councillor Hilary McGuill, having earlier declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion.

            The officer explained that the application was deferred at the meeting on 20^th July 2016 pending clarification of some matters.  The application was subsequently deferred on 7^th September 2016.

That information was now contained in the report before the Committee.  He added that concerns had been raised that a direct footpath link between the site and the footpath that ran to the south of the site was not provided for within the scheme.  He explained that access to the footpath and the play area beyond could be obtained via the link from the southern end of Argoed Avenue to the east of the site.  That link was within easy walking distance of the site and did not involve any need to cross any major roads.  He added that the introduction of a footpath link in the southern part of the site would result in a further reduction of the dwellings.

On density, he explained that the site was proposed to be developed in compliance with Policy HSG8 and at a density that reflected the density of nearby and recently approved developments.

The Councils Housing Strategy Manager had commented on the issue of affordable housing in that the demand for intermediate affordable housing was minimal in New Brighton and therefore affordable housing provision should not be sought in this scheme.

Councillor Sara Parker, as the local Member, spoke in support of the application which she felt would benefit the village.  She welcomed the proposed development of the site which had not received any opposition from local residents.  She also concurred with the view that affordable housing was not required on the site.  She provided reassurance to the Committee that the bungalow on the site would not be developed as part of the application.

Mr White spoke against the application on the following basis: he did not accept that the introduction of a footpath link to the southern part of the site would reduce the number of dwellings; it was unacceptable for school children to walk around the perimeter of the site as opposed to the inclusion of a 20 metre footpath. 

Mr Connolly spoke in support of the application based on the following:  paragraph 7.21 of the report referred to the size of site which was incorrect as it included the part of the site which was occupied by the owner of the bungalow; there had never been any intention of that home being part of the proposed development therefore, the size of the site was 0.94 hectares - this meant that affordable housing was not required on the development; the site would contribute to the provision of educational facilities for primary and secondary education in the area of over £135,000; the site was also allocated as a residential site in the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

Councillor Peers proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded by Councillor Roberts.

Councillor Peers said the application was first considered by Committee in 2010.  It was the same site area, the same number of houses but a different applicant.  In 2010 officers advised that the site would be expected to yield in excess of 25 houses, therefore affordable housing applied.  He felt that the site had been sub-divided to ensure that it fell below the threshold of having to provide affordable housing.  A Flood Assessment had been undertaken which showed an additional 6 houses on the site of the bungalow.  In June 2015 a report had been considered at Cabinet on Supplementary Planning Guidance which stated “it was not acceptable to sub-divide a site in a development to avoid the provision of affordable housing”, which he felt was the intention in this case.  He concluded by saying he felt that based on the size of the site there should be 8 affordable homes provided as part of the development.

Councillor Bithell concurred with the comments of Councillor Peers and also spoke in support of the objectors comments on children being required to walk along a main road due to no footpath link.  He also concurred with the view of Councillor Peers on sub-division to avoid the provision of affordable housing.  He queried whether the newly agreed wording by the Planning Strategy Group was to be used in relation to Section 106 agreements on school usages.

            Councillors Butler and Roberts also concurred with the comments made and felt the site was being split to avoid the need for a provision of affordable housing, saying that affordable housing need was not just based on the people currently living in that area, in addition to a general lack of knowledge on the affordable housing register.  Councillor Butler also agreed with the comments of the objector on where the footpath was situated.

            The Officer explained that whilst it was the same site, it was a different proposal which needed to be considered on its own merits, not on what had happened in the past.  On supplementary planning guidance, he said SPG9 had not yet been adopted so carried little weight.  The report covered all of the concerns raised on the footpath.

            The Planning Strategy Manager asked Members to carefully consider the application before them, citing that there were approximately 900 people currently on the affordable housing register but there was no local need in this area.  That was the first consideration in applying the policy on affordable housing; if there was no local need then the rest of the policy was not invoked.  In addition to that, the site size did not meet the threshold of being required to supply affordable housing. He also referred Members to the comments of the local Member who provided reassurance that the bungalow currently on the site would not be developed.

            Councillor Peers summed up the reasons for refusal citing there was a lack of provision of affordable housing, insufficient level of residential density achieved on the site and an inappropriate mix of housing type.  He said he would welcome a further application in the future which would address those issues.

            On being put to the vote, refusal of the application was carried, against officer recommendation.

            RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused, against officer recommendation, on the grounds of lack of provision of affordable housing; insufficient level of residential density and an inappropriate mix of housing type. 

After the vote had been taken, Councillor Hilary McGuill returned to the meeting and was advised of the decision by the Chairman.