Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking to provide the following:-

• The property shall be occupied by the applicants Mr and Mrs Shaw in the first instance
• If the property is put up for sale in the future 30% of the property value is repaid to the Council, secured as a charge on the property

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application. 

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. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report which had been deferred from the Committee meeting in December 2013.  Following a request from Councillor Mike Peers, she detailed which sections in the report had been amended to address the issues of affordability, housing need and backland/tandem development.  She highlighted the section on local need and Policy HSG3 which required that any additional housing had to be justified on the grounds of local need where the growth in a settlement area exceeded 15%.  The personal circumstances of the applicant and his family were detailed in paragraph 7.08 and their local connections had been demonstrated to Cymdeithas Tai Clwyd who maintained the Affordable Housing Register on behalf of the County Council.  Any planning permission would restrict the first occupation to Mr & Mrs Shaw and would require a Section 106 Agreement which would put a charge on the house so that, if it was sold in the future, 30% of the money would be paid back to the Council.  The Housing Strategy Officer considered that the applicants met the affordable housing criteria under policy HSG3 in terms of their local connection and affordable housing need.  Members had questioned the need for a four bedroom house and double garage and details of the requirements were reported in paragraph 7.10. 

                        The development was a form of backland development but this did not, in itself, mean that the application should be refused.  The important issue to consider was the harm that this form of development might cause in terms of impacts on residential amenity to the occupiers of 37 Wood Lane, the proposed dwelling, and adjoining properties, and the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area.  The impact from the increased vehicle movements to the occupiers of 37 Wood Lane when in the existing conservatory would be minimised by the introduction of obscure glazing to reduce any impact on privacy.  The officer explained that there was no direct overlooking with 37 Wood Lane or any adjacent properties but there was potential for overlooking to the rear garden of 35 Wood Lane, although this was common in urban areas.  Any impact could be dealt with by the retention of the existing boundary hedgerow and other suitable boundary treatment which could be dealt with by condition. 

                        Mr. I. Warlow spoke against the application.  He said that two previous applications had been refused and that this proposal was on a footprint of a similar size to those applications, so should also be refused.  He felt that a four bedroom dwelling could not be classed as an affordable dwelling and that the proposal was exploiting a planning loophole which he suggested other developers would use if the application was approved.  Mr. Warlow said that the average price of a four bedroom property in the area was £300,000 and again queried how this could be an affordable dwelling.  He felt that the affordable homes policy was aimed at enabling families onto the property ladder.  He highlighted paragraph 7.16 about backland development and queried the need for the dwelling.  He felt that the three metre hedge at the property was higher than was allowed by law and raised concern that the five metre hedge could be retained to reduce the impact of the dwelling on his garden.  He said that corners had been cut and laws flouted and if the application was approved it would become a test case in law.

                        The Principal Solicitor advised that there was nothing in the report, and nothing that he was aware of, to suggest that laws had been flouted and no cause for concern over the way in which the application had been handled. 

                        Mr. C. Shaw, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that he hoped that the Committee now had knowledge of his circumstances and the application’s compliance with Policy HSG3 and local housing need.  The proposed dwelling satisfied the requirements of space around dwellings including parking, turning places and backland development.  The application for local housing need had the support of Tai Clwyd and Mr. Shaw confirmed that the current family home would need to be sold to finance the proposed dwelling.  The property was currently on the market for £247,000, which was lower then the £300,000 talked of by the previous speaker, and an offer lower than this had been accepted.  The house was now sold subject to contract and the people purchasing the property had seen the plans for the proposed dwelling.  If the application was successful, he would enter into a section 106 agreement to repay 30% of the property value if it was sold in the future.  The dwelling, which would provide a home for himself and his family, was smaller than the property that they currently lived in.  He confirmed that he was not a property developer and even though he worked for a building company, this was on the industrial side, not the house building side.  He had approached the occupiers of 35 Wood Lane and they had raised concerns, but Mr. Shaw felt that these had been addressed in a sensitive manner.              

            Councillor Alison Halford proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  She said that she was being accused of impropriety and referred to an email that she had received from the Monitoring Officer which put her in difficulty as she had asked questions as an Elected Member which she was entitled to ask.  She did not think that policy HSG3 had been complied with in this case and raised concern that great emphasis had been given to the policy but there was nothing in the report about affordability.  Councillor Halford had asked questions about affordability and queried whether it was necessary for the applicant to sell his home to fund the new dwelling as she had been told that it was not necessary.  She referred to 41 houses which were to be built within a quarter of a mile of this dwelling on a site which was outside the settlement boundary in the Unitary Development Plan yet no consideration appeared to have been given to the growth of 18.1% in the settlement. 

            Councillor Derek Butler felt that the application was complicated and he had asked for it to be deferred last time as it was full of anomalies. He referred to the footprint being similar to the footprint on two previous applications which had been refused.  He also commented on the growth rate of 18.1%.  He referred to the affordable housing element and queried whether this would set a precedent of people buying houses that they could not afford to get on the Affordable Housing Register.  However, he added that, as all the criteria had been met, he was minded to grant the application.  Councillor Butler referred to paragraph 7.18 and queried whether the piece of land that the applicants leased was a capital asset.  The Principal Solicitor said that if the land was leased from the electricity company by the applicant then the applicant did not own it and therefore could not obtain any capital from its sale. 

            Councillor Richard Lloyd queried whether the investigation works requested by the Coal Authority and the Head of Public Protection should be carried out before the application was determined to establish whether there was a mining risk.  He also asked whether the 30% value of property would be based on the value at the time of sale or the current value.  Councillor Lloyd sought clarification about the piece of land leased from the electricity company and whether it formed part of the current garden area and asked for further information on the parking of vehicles to the front of 37 Wood Lane.  He also asked whether the applicant had to sell the family home before building the new property. 

            Councillor Mike Peers said that the applicant’s financial situation had been dealt with by Tai Clwyd and they were satisfied that he could go on the Affordable Housing Register.  He asked if the dwelling would be allowed on the site if the 30% charge to the Council was not proposed.  He said that the Committee had to determine whether the proposal could go on the site, and as the issues of impact on residential amenity and backland development had been considered in the report and the affordability element had been dealt with by Tai Clwyd, he felt that the recommendation of approval was correct. 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts said that the issue of affordability had been pushed by Government to give the appearance of dealing with affordable housing but if the loophole existed and was legal then he believed that approval was the correct decision.  However he felt that approval of the application could set a dangerous precedent and requested that the Planning Strategy Group consider the particular issue.

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that this application was not considered to be a loophole to Policy HSG3, and as the local housing need had been proved, the application was justified.  She explained where the land that the applicant leased from the electricity company was located and said that the further investigative works required by the Coal Authority would need to be undertaken before the development started but not before the determination of the application.  The 30% charge would be based on the value of the property at the time of the sale, and on the issue of parking to the front of 37 Wood Lane, this was deemed to be acceptable and sufficient for the size of the dwelling and it was currently used as a parking area.  The officer indicated that the Council could not force the applicant to sell his current property but he had said that his financial circumstances required him to do so.  She also confirmed that the dwelling would be allowed without the 30% scheme were it not for the fact that the cumulative growth of housing in Ewloe within the UDP period exceeded 15%. 

            The Principal Solicitor emphasised that if the housing growth figure had not been exceeded then the dwelling would not need to be an affordable.

            Councillor Halford said that she had checked with Tai Clwyd and they did allow applications from people who currently had a property, with caveats, but they relied very heavily on the financial aspect of the matter with help from Flintshire’s Housing officers.  She said that it cost £180,000 to build a new dwelling and she felt that this could put the applicant in a worse financial state.  His property was on the market for £247,000 but had not yet been sold.  She raised concern that other building would be allowed to take place outside the boundary of Ewloe in the UDP and again referred to a site for 41 dwellings.  She concluded that the Committee was here to ensure that policies were sound and transparent. 

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

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking to provide the following:-

• The property shall be occupied by the applicants Mr and Mrs Shaw in the first instance
• If the property is put up for sale in the future 30% of the property value is repaid to the Council, secured as a charge on the property

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application.