Agenda item

To consider an application for the erection of 95 dwellings, together with associated roads, open space and related works at land off Vicarage Road, Llangollen (copy attached).

 

An application was submitted for erection of 95 no. dwellings, together with associated roads, open spaces and related works at land off Vicarage Road, Llangollen.

 

Public Speakers –

 

Mr. Lawrence (Against) – raised concerns regarding the application.  He objected to the fact that the current application bore no resemblance to the application granted in 1997 when the upper field had not been considered for development. He expressed the need for a larger number of affordable housing.  Also concerns were expressed on the pressure on schools and the amount of open space within the proposed development.

 

Mr. Gilbert (For) – provided background and information to the development.  The whole site had been allocated for development within the LDP.  Discussions had taken place with planning officers and the developers were complying with Denbighshire’s planning standards.  There would be a new road proposal in relation to the application which would improve problems and ease local residents concerns.

 

General Debate – The Planning Officer made reference to the allocated site combining 2 parcels of land - one containing extant planning permission for 50 dwellings and the second had been allocated within the LDP for development of 45 dwellings. 

 

During intense discussion the following issues were raised:

 

·       The previous planning consent had been kept live due to the fact that the access road to the development had been constructed within 5 years of the granting of the planning permission.

·       Open Space – Following negotiations, a larger more centralised public open space had been proposed.  The management responsibilities were proposed to lie with the developer/landowner and would be secured by a legal agreement.  An additional £1818.28 was proposed as a contribution to off-site provision.

·       A drainage strategy had been submitted indicating that soakaways were a realistic option on the site.  Officers considered that sufficient information had been submitted to demonstrate that foul and surface water could be acceptably managed.  The exact size and location of the proposed soakaways had not been established, however, it was considered that the detail could reasonably be controlled through condition.

·       Various concerns had been raised in relation to the impact of the development in relation to the local highway network and highway safety.  Assessments had been undertaken by the Highways section and based on the submission together with the collation of additional information, the Highways Officers considered that it would be necessary that the new access road be completed prior to the construction of any dwellings.  This would allow construction traffic relating to the dwellings to use this as a route into the site.  Having regard to the technical consultee responses, the detailing of the proposed access and parking arrangements, the design of junctions, the location of the site and scale of the development, it was not considered that the development would have an unacceptable impact on the local highways network.

·       The proposal was for the erection of 95 dwellings on 3.7 hectares.  This would represent a density of 26 dwellings per hectare which fell bellow the figure which would arise from applying the Policy RD1 figure of 35 d/ha.

·       An agreement had been reached with the developers in relation to education contribution which was proposed to be secured through a legal agreement.

·       It was confirmed by the Head of Planning and Public Protection that the application was for 95 dwellings which included a previous application for 50 dwellings.  The extant planning permission had been for different layout and design.  The current application was for the whole site for 95 dwellings.

·       A number of Members questioned the allocation of affordable housing.  The Head of Planning and Public Protection explained that the extant planning permission for 50 houses predated the affordable housing requirement and therefore accepted the negotiation of affordable housing for the 10% of 45 dwellings.  This would equate to 4 affordable housing units with an additional payment of £47,074.50 proposed towards off site provision.  Officers considered that significant weight must be afforded to the extant permissions.

·       Members expressed their disagreement to the calculation and insisted that the 10% of affordable housing should be allocated to the whole site of 95 dwellings. This would equate to 9 affordable housing units with an additional payment of £47,074.50 proposed to off site provision.

 

The Local Member, Councillor Rhys Hughes expressed his disagreement to the development especially the affordable housing allocation..  Councillor Hughes also requested that additional parking be provided close to Castle Buildings as set out on the plan.  The developer had agreed to one parking space per household but Councillor Hughes requested additional spaces be provided.

 

Proposal – Councillor Merfyn Parry proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Huw Hilditch-Roberts to grant the application with the Section 106 Agreement applying to 10% affordable housing to be applied to the whole site (95 dwellings).

 

The precise wording of the Section 106 would be a matter for the legal officer to finalise.  In the event of failure to complete the Section 106 Agreement within 12 months of the date of the resolution of the Planning Committee, the application would be reported back to the Committee for determination against the relevant policies and guidance at that time.

 

Proposal – Councillor Rhys Hughes proposed the refusal of the application, seconded by Councillor Arwel Roberts on the grounds there were insufficient affordable housing, highway issues and impact on the AONB.

 

The Head of Planning and Public Protection confirmed that the vote regarding the amendment proposed by Councillor Merfyn Parry would take place in the first instance.

 

VOTE:

For – 22

Abstain – 0

Refuse – 0

 

The amendment was unanimously agreed.

 

The Head of Planning and Public Protection confirmed that that vote would take place as to whether to grant the planning permission including the Section 106 Agreement 10% of 95 dwellings to be considered for affordable housing or to refuse the application.

 

VOTE:

For – 17

Abstain – 0

Refuse – 6

 

RESOLVED that the planning permission be GRANTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation subject to completion of a Section 106 Obligation to secure affordable housing contributions based on 10% of 95 dwellings and education and open space contributions as per the Officer report.