Transcript

Good morning, Councillors. Welcome to the planning committee meeting on Thursday, the 20th of June, 2024. I'm Councillor Tessa Levins, chair of the Camardinshire County Council's planning committee. This is a multi-location meeting with an option to meet in person in the chamber or remotely. Before proceeding today, I have to remind everyone present that the proceedings of today's meeting are being filmed live and may be kept on the Council's internet site as an archive record of the meeting. The images and sound recording may also be used for training purposes within the Council. Members of the public watching the meeting via the English language webcast will receive Welsh to English simultaneous interpretation automatically. Members and guests who have joined through Zoom who wish to receive simultaneous interpretation from Welsh to English should click on the interpreter symbol at the bottom of the screen and then choose English. Those attending in person should use the interpretation device and headphones provided in the chamber. I should remind all members and officers that they should speak on an item only after I invite them to speak and after activating your microphone. This will allow discussions to be seamlessly broadcast. Please remember to mute after speaking. Furthermore, can I ask the committee members who are in attendance remotely to have their cameras on for the duration of the meeting and not just when speaking. If remote members lose connection during the live meeting, please make every attempt to reconnect. However, the meeting will continue so long as it is recorded. There is no expected fire alarm today, but if the alarm does sound, this will not be a test and the appropriate fire exit signs should be followed if attending physically. We will now move on to the agenda before us today. And the first item on the agenda, apologies for absence, and we haven't received a single apology for absence. The second point, declaration of personal interests. And I will ask our solicitor, Mr Edgecombe, to read this for us, please. >> Thank you, Chair. Your conduct to verbally declare any personal interest that you may have in relation to any item appearing on the agenda today. Please ensure that you clearly indicate which agenda item you have a personal interest in and the specific nature of the interest to be disclosed. If your interest is prejudicial, you will have to leave the meeting. For remote attendees, the democratic services officer will place you in the virtual lobby and invite you back to the meeting once the debate has concluded. You should not use the rejoin meeting button. If an interest has not been declared at the start but becomes known during discussions, it will need to be declared when that interest becomes apparent. You will need to repeat your declaration of personal interest at the beginning of the irrelevant item on the agenda, as well as indicating whether or not you will be leaving the meeting during consideration of that item. You will also need to indicate whether you have been granted a dispensation by the standards committee or monitoring officer to speak or vote or both in respect of any item on the agenda. Thank you, Robert. If members wish to declare an interest, could you please raise your hand? I can't see anyone. So we'll now proceed to item 3 on the agenda. And this reads as follows, PL02235. I'll now go to Helen Price, who is the planning officer. So the application before us today is for the erection of a residential dwelling in the village of Hross. On the description, it does refer to a one residential dwelling, but it is for local needs purposes. So in the report before you, the application changed during the course of the submission for it to be considered against our local needs policy. So it is proposed to be a local needs dwelling. So this slide shows you the location of the site itself. So the village of Hross here along the A484 main road that leads up to the town of Landesselle to the northeast and then Newcastle to the northwest. This slide shows you the settlement boundary for the settlement of Hross. Effectively, the village itself has grown along the A484 corridor and along the crossroads element. So the settlement extent is defined by the black line. So that's the definition within our local development plan. The application site is just outside that settlement boundary. It adjoins it and is opposite it on the opposing side of the road, but it is nevertheless outside of the settlement boundary and therefore is classed as being in the countryside in terms of the local development plan and planning policies. So these are just zoomed in versions of the aerial photograph of the village itself. So you can see how there is the residential area around that crossroads area. There is, as I recall, a petrol station further to the south of the application site with some amenities and there is a local public house up to the north here. So again, the application site is this red line boundary here, and it is in effect part of a wider agricultural field. The remaining field will be retained for agricultural purposes as part of this application. But you can possibly just about see there is some hard standing that's been created in the front section of the application site. That's in association with the existing agricultural use of the land and there are some containers stored on that piece of land. So what is before us is an application to erect a detached two-storey property. So this is the application site plan that was submitted with the application and effectively it shows the plot that would be created by the application site and the visibility displays that are achievable from creation of a new access point through the existing hedgerow of the A484 at this location here. You will just about see here there is an existing agricultural access into the remaining fields. That will not be interrupted by this application, so that existing agricultural access will remain, providing access to effectively the remainder of the field that would effectively remain after planning permission if it were to be granted. So in terms of the block plan that's been submitted, this is in effect what we're looking at today in terms of the position of the proposed dwelling. So it is set back from the A484. There is an existing hedgerow that is proposed to be translocated to create a hedgerow boundary with the remaining agricultural field. Obviously there is more need for hedgerows than just that section, so there would be a translocation of that section of hedgerow onto this area here as well as the planting of an additional hedgerow to finish off the plot boundary then if you like with the agricultural fields. Also as part of planning applications now there is a requirement for biodiversity enhancement measures and the applicant has acceded to this request, partly through the planting of additional hedgerow, but there are also proposals for biodiversity enhancements in terms of a hedgehog highway tunnel through one of the hedgerow banks that are to be created. So as you can see on this plan the new access point will be created from the A484 at this location here, leading into a parking and turning area to the front of the property and then the main property itself will be located roughly along the same building line as existing properties further south of the application site and the inclusion of an integral garage as well. So in terms of the elevations of the property, as mentioned it's a two storey property intended to be finished with a mixture of render and stonework on some of the main elevations and then a slate roof and as I mentioned an integral garage on the side there. In addition to the biodiversity enhancement measures I've mentioned there is proposals for the installation of back boxes as well on the gable ends of the property. So these are the floor plans proposed and I'll go into more detail on these when we go through the appraisal, but in effect you'll have a ground floor with an office, a lounge and then a dining, kitchen and living area then leading into an utility and the integral garage and then on the upper floor you would have two en suite bedrooms, one double bedroom and two double bedrooms, family bathroom and there's also a walk-in wardrobe for the main master suite if you like. So when I mentioned previously when the application was originally submitted it was for a residential dwelling, an incumbent bed as we refer to it and it would have been an open market dwelling and at that time the original application included plans for further bedrooms above the integral garage. As part of the application and following sort of our concerns about it from a policy perspective and it being an open market dwelling in the countryside, the applicant did confirm that they would like it to be considered under local needs policy and we did request the scale of that dwelling to be reduced. So the reduction in scale that the applicant has chosen to instigate is in effect removal of the bedroom area that was to be included above the integral garage area at this point here. So there has been a reduction because originally the floor plan of the dwelling would amount to around 300 odd square metres. They have reduced it but it's still in total 278 square metres in terms of floor space on the both ground and first floor area. So to give you an idea of the location itself, so these photos were taken last week. So the application site is just located here and these are the existing properties that are situated within the settlement boundary of Ross and they are relatively recently built dwellings. Just to give you an idea in terms of what's being proposed, in terms of the width of what we have before us, it would be similar in width to these properties but in terms of the depth, they would be larger in depth than these properties because of these rear projections that we have. So just to give you an idea of the scale of the dwelling that we're looking at, these are open market dwellings and they are located within the settlement boundary and hence where planning permission is granted for those dwellings. So this is the application site itself. As I mentioned, this is the existing hedgerow that would be, in effect, removed but translocated to create that new boundary with the agricultural field and the new access point would be created roughly at this location here. You can see in the distance there the public house, the La Min in the distance there. That's the existing agricultural access into the remaining field that would not be affected by this development. So a further view, looking back now south eastwards, so this is the existing hedgerow that, as I mentioned, would be translocated and the neighbouring property there. Then this gives you an idea of the wider location of Ross. You can see the various types of buildings, dwellings within the village itself. It mainly comprises, on this side of the road, two storey dwellings and then on the opposing side of the road it's generally bungalows or dorma bungalows that have been built in recent years. So the application site, as I mentioned, there was an existing hard standing that's been created and storage containers which are, as I understand, being used in association with the wide agricultural use of the field. But in terms of the plot area that we're looking at, the hedgerow that I've mentioned that will be created to create the outline of the plot will be located along here and then would turn back and adjoin the plot boundary of the neighbouring property. Again, this is a view of the existing agricultural field, so we're looking at a plot boundary being roughly here and along here and then this would be the remaining field area that would be left. So looking, and this photograph has been taken from the existing agricultural access point to give you an idea of the wider site area and the development on the opposite side of the road, as I mentioned, there are bungalows mainly on the opposite side of the road with a couple of empty plots actually on this opposing side of the road. These are within the settlement boundary limits as defined in the local development plan at the moment. Then a further view looking south back towards the main crossroads area of the village. That's the property that would be mostly directly adjacent to the site. Again, a sort of dorm of bungalow, so I can't quite see it, but you can see the ridge roof there. And then you can see, as I mentioned, sort of the bungalow type development on the opposite side of the road. Oh, that's a better photo, just showing you that opposite property. And then that's effectively the village of Ross itself. So as I mentioned, this application has been considered against our local needs planning policies, following discussions with the applicant, because originally we expressed that there wouldn't be policy support for an open market dwelling at this location, given that it is within the countryside. We've got two policies in our local development plan that enable the erection of affordable housing, purely as a means of creating opportunities for those who are within local need and meet that definition to have the ability to purchase a property, not only to build a property, but also to generate supply for future people that would fall within the local needs bracket. In this case scenario, whilst you will have rehearsed and looked at local needs dwellings previously in the planning committee, the majority of them would have been considered against policy AH3, which refers to settlements or groups of dwellings. But on this one, because it's adjacent to the settlement, we apply policy AH2, which is the policy that specifically refers to exception sites adjacent to settlement limits, provided they are for affordable housing purposes only. So I've reproduced the policy in the report before you. So in terms of assessing the application, we've assessed it against the quite stringent requirements of that policy. So if I go through it, the first step is evidently that the applicants meet the local needs definition. The application has been supported by a personal statement, in effect, setting out the criteria or the position of the applicants. Both were raised locally. One was born and raised within the community area of Rangeler, whilst the other applicant was born and raised in the adjacent area of Rangeler. So they have got local connections. They are a family that are coming together, and they previously had a property in Rangeler, but on the basis of this application, they subsequently left that property and are currently in temporary accommodation, pending resolution of this planning application. They have two children each, so there is a large family, so there's a requirement for a six-person house, in effect. They are working locally as well, and from the information that they supply to us, and having looked at our definition as to what car is confirmed as a local needs, it is generally considered that the applicants do comply with the local need definition, in that they are seeking to effectively create a new household in the community areas where they were born and raised. So we are mindful to accept that they do meet that local need definition, and particularly that the needs of the dwelling size means they are unable to purchase a property on the open market to meet their space requirements. So that's the first element of the policy that needs to be applied. So if I go through all the criteria then of the policies, the first one is to assess whether it represents a logical extension to the development limits, and we've come to the conclusion that this would effectively represent a logical extension to the settlement limits. So as I mentioned, this is the settlement limits, and effectively it would mean extending the built form of the settlement by one property adjacent to another property. So it does appear to us to be a logical extension to the actual settlement itself. In terms of the impact upon the character and appearance of the area, this dwelling would be one of the larger properties within the village itself. You can see here these are the two properties that have been most recently built, and generally they tend to be the larger properties within the settlement itself, and also with the fact that they are two storey properties with a number of the other large plots that you see here being bungalows. So whilst it would be one of the larger properties in terms of the materials being used and the appearance and design of the building, it's not considered that it would be so out of character with that settlement that it would appear as an acceptable development or addition to the settlement. So we haven't got concerns in that aspect. The next criteria is that the benefits of the initial affordability would be retained for all subsequent occupants, and that in effect requires the assessment of whether we can apply a Section 106 to ensure that this property remains as a local needs dwelling for the future. That does correlate with the scale issue, which I'll go on to in a minute, but just for your purposes, the applicant is aware that should Planning Commission be granted, would have been granted, they would have needed to have entered into a Section 106 agreement. That hasn't been pursued, because as you will have read in the report, the application is recommended for refusal, so they haven't pursued it, but they are aware of the need to enter into it. But we have to consider whether that's a suitable way forward, having regard to the scale of the property, and this is the issue with this particular application. So scale is a critical element of affordable housing policies, because in effect scale equals or is equivalent to what is the value of the property in the end. So we do assess applications, ensuring that the scale of the property is suitable or compatible with an affordable dwelling, and the criteria of the policy is that it must be available to those on low to moderate income groups. So we look at various aspects to determine this, and as I've mentioned, this property is 278 square metres in floor space, so that is a significantly scaled property. To give you an idea of what is classed as the space standards that are required for certain affordable units, we do look at the Welsh Government Development Quality Requirement Standards. They've been set out in the report before you, so for the largest affordable housing unit, which would be accommodating a 10-person, 7-bedroom house, the Welsh Government standards suggest that they would have to have a floor space of 152 square metres. So this application, being a 6-bedroom person house is really what's needed, would be far in excess or more than double the scale of that floor space. We don't necessarily request that people adhere to those standards, it's just that they are reflective of them, because it is in effect making sure that the value of that property remains affordable for the future. So as I mentioned, in this local area, in the Tevye area, the current sort of moderate median household income is £31,823. So that's the sort of range I suppose you were looking at in terms of those income groups that need to be eligible or able to purchase this property. So when you apply mortgage requirements and potentially deposits, the bare minimum would be a property worth £157,000. So with a property of 278 square metres, and having looked at what is available in the local area, a property of that scale would be significantly more than what would be affordable to people on those median household incomes. I looked at some properties of a similar scale and they were in excess of £450,000. And indeed, the applicant themselves have indicated those types of properties and indicated themselves as they are outside of their reach and hence why they are requesting this application. In terms of justification for the scale, we acknowledge that there is a need for a larger property because of the size of the family, but again, it needs to be of a reasonable scale. The applicant has said that they are hoping to build it for £175,000, which is the equivalent of a per square metre cost of £630, which is significantly lower than the average cost of building a dwelling now, which is between £1,500 to £2,000 per square metre. So it is doubtful whether the applicants can actually build a dwelling of this scale for what they are saying is available to them financially, except that the family has connections with the construction industry that can assist with reduction of the construction costs. But nevertheless, that is quite a significant difference between the standard costs, even of materials that we have at the moment. So we are mindful when we grant planning applications for local needs dwellings, because contrary to popular belief, we do grant planning permission for local needs dwellings, provided the scale is acceptable. And the reasons for doing that is to ensure that we are building a supply of local needs dwellings for our future generations, because we are aware of the need to try and retain people within our local areas. But building a property of this scale is highly unlikely to be a property that will be available to people in the future that meet those local needs criteria, as can be demonstrated now with the types of properties that are on sale on the open market. So on that basis, we do not consider that this proposal would be a dwelling of a scale that is compatible with an affordable housing unit that would be available for future residents that meet that eligibility criteria. So hence why that is the fundamental reason that we are looking at refusing the application today. There is a further criteria in the policy about whether there is an allocation within the local village of any affordable housing potential in the local village. There isn't any housing allocations in the village itself, but as you can see here, there are a couple of empty plots within the settlement limits itself, albeit I appreciate that may not be within the ownership of the applicants themselves. But nevertheless, I think generally in terms of that criteria, we are generally happy that the application supports that because there are no physical allocations within the area for affordable housing need purposes. So it is very much down to the scale of this particular dwelling. We have tried to encourage the applicant to reduce the scale because we are effectively happy with the majority of the criteria. And even before this planning committee, we tried again, but the applicants wished for the application to be determined as it is, citing one example of a similar scale property that has been allowed by the planning committee, but nevertheless, failing to cite the number that we have also refused. So it is a case of a matter that would have to be considered by yourselves. But nevertheless, we are being consistent as officers and bearing in mind the need to be fundamentally applying the policy of needing to ensure that this property is affordable for future generations. But turning quickly to the other requirements in terms of highways, as I have mentioned in the report, there are no concerns from a highway perspective. Biodiversity impacts, we are happy with those elements. Just quickly, one of the reasons why this application has been in the system for a long period of time is because we are in the phosphate sensitive catchment area at this location, so we have not been in a position to bring this application to you for a number of months or possibly years because of the phosphate issue. However, there has been some inroads in the phosphate situation in this particular location. Recently, primarily, the local waste water treatment work, Xandri Vakhalindra, has received a new permit from NRW, which allows for developments to now finally proceed subject to Welsh water accepting that there is capacity within the waste water treatment works to accept this additional foul water, which they have finally accepted. So in that respect, the phosphate issue has now also been addressed in this particular location. But nevertheless, even though those matters are satisfactory, we remain of the opinion that this is simply not a dwelling given its scale that is classed as an affordable dwelling that would be available for people in the future and that would meet the eligibility criteria. Thank you. Thank you, Helen. When this application came in a number of years ago, the local member was Councillor Mankin Howells at that time, but now two communities have been merged, so Councillor Hazel Evans is also a local member. And Hazel has requested to address the committee. And she is joining us remotely on screen, so you have up to a maximum of five minutes to address the committee. Thank you. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning. I wasn't part of the Tlengel award when the application first submitted, but after reading it, I'd like to speak in favour of the application. It's next to the boundary limit, but it is outside of it, but there is a house opposite and also further down, so this will not stand out or will not look out of place. The nearby homes are the same size, and the family has four children from previous relationships, so it's not appropriate for them to share rooms. I sympathise with the family, and it would be impossible for them to be able to buy a home that suits the whole family. They can only afford the home because the family are builders, and so it can be made more affordable to them. The applicants work locally, and they come from the area, and they wish to remain in the area and support the local school. This house would be their forever house. Tlangeira Community Council are also supportive, and so I am asking you kindly to support this application. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Evans. And so I'll now open it up to the committee, as I mentioned previously, Councillor Ken Howells is the other local member, and so I'll begin with you, Ken. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for that report. But the report is deficient, not intentionally so, but it is deficient because it's not a family of six. There is one other on the way, so by the end of this year it will be a family of seven, but of course you didn't know that fact. And also the husband works from home. The majority of his time he works from home, so there's an office, and of course that has increased the size or the floor space. The world has changed since these regulations were put in place. We now have more and more people working from home, and so these people need an office, and that's why the size of the house is as is noted, and also they will be a family of seven. And this application, it's more than just an application for the home, because with this number of children it will mean that a scolbrin saron, which is just down the road, will be kept open, because it is currently in a vulnerable position. But if more tend and increase the number attending the school, then there will be an opportunity for that school to be kept open. And also this family has contributed culturally to this area, and we wish to keep such people in our rural areas. We wish to keep them in the area. There is mention that they will not be able to afford to build the house, but the father is a builder, his brother is a carpenter, and there are others in the family who are builders. So I don't think that will go against them, and they will be able to build this home. There are also, this family has needs, and those needs being to being able to remain in the area, that's what they want, in the area where they've been brought up, and you've spoken about an affordable home which will be sold on. But this home is their dream for this couple. For some four years now, they've been dreaming about having an opportunity to build this home and to remain in the area. So it's more than just building this house, it's about keeping the school open, and it will then enable us to have a pavement in Ross, in order to join Ross and Saron. And so I ask and I propose that we should go against the officer recommendation and to permit planning permission to a local family who wish to remain local. There has been mention of the Welsh language losing ground, so this is now an opportunity for us to work against that, and to allow this local family to remain in the area. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Howells. Councillor Howells has proposed that we should go against the recommendation. Do we have someone who wishes to second that? Yes, we do. Councillor Dorian Phillips. I agree with the majority of what Councillor Howells has had to say, but here we are looking at a building which is more than twice the size of a building that we should actually be allowing to a family. And in the words of one of the members of this committee, it's a monstrosity of a building. Councillor Dorian Phillips. Yes, I do have a couple of questions, but thank you for the report. In that 278 square metres, is the garage included in that floor space? The garage looks quite large, so you can probably take 40 square metres from that for the garage. That's not necessarily part of the house. And another point, if the home is made smaller, it will look out of place. It will look out of place because of the other large houses next to it. And another point, are we actually penalising this family as they're actually being able to undertake much of the work themselves? You're talking about 175,000 for the build and that will help them enormously that they're able to do a lot of the work themselves because it's the labour that's expensive. It's the cost of labour that's expensive these days. The cost of materials have actually come down somewhat over the past two years. So I think that we are actually penalising them for their ability to be able to do much of the work themselves. So that's the question I have, whether the garage is included in the square footage. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Phillips. The only thing I would say, we have to remember that we are actually outside of the settlement boundary limits. We'll begin with Councillor Jean Lewis. Thank you, chair, and thank you also for the images that we've seen today and also the report that we've received from the officer. As the officer has noted, it meets the majority of the criteria for an affordable home. But what we have to keep in mind here are the needs of this family. There are four children, another on the way, as we've heard, so I think we have to think of the needs of this family. They've had this land and there are builders in the family which will build this home far cheaper than what they would otherwise be able to do. So I would like to second Ken Harwell's proposal and to ask people to consider, because we normally, we have to look at the situation as it is. We've got a family here of seven who need a forever home. So I think that we shouldn't look too far into the future, but to look what we have in front of us this morning, an application for a home for a family of six, soon to be seven. Thank you, chair. Councillor Russell Sparks. Thank you, chair. What can I ask? Thanks for the report, Helen. You've made it quite clear throughout the report that, against lots of the criteria, the development being next to the current developments, that you are sympathetic towards the development, but the key thing appears to be the size of this property and also the reality or the realistic prospect of it remaining affordable in perpetuity against local needs. If this application, and I appreciate it's hypothetical, had gone through against the standard instead of against local needs, would it have been appraised in a different way if it was open market property? Would you have perhaps come to a different view? Is it because we are restricted against the local needs policy that we find ourselves in this position? I agree with Councillor Howell's comments about the importance of this family and supporting them, as you have as well, chair, but I just wonder if that's our predicament this morning. Thank you. Do you ask the question? Thank you, Councillor Sparks. Councillor Karyssa Jones. Thank you, chair. I agree with everything that Councillor Howell's and Jean Lewis and everyone else has had to say. The only problem is that it's too large. If you can confirm as an officer that you have tried to persuade the applicant to decrease the size somewhat, there was mention of the garage. The garage is in the plan, so it is included, but the suggestion has been made to take the garage out in order to bring that square meterage down, but that hasn't happened. So I believe that it's too large, but if it came in smaller and small enough not to be so far over the guidance, then all other elements of this application is appropriate, in my opinion. Thank you, Karyssa. Councillor Gareth Thomas. If I can add to a question that Orian asked about the location of the garage, what about the office? Because more and more people are now working from home, is an office now part of the plan? Is it something outside of the square meterage? Because an office is an office, and they cannot live in the office, but an office is something in addition that's needed in a modern home, whether you live in a rural area or in the middle of an urban area. So is the office considered as being part of the home or can be considered similar to the garage as being something outside, because the office is quite large as well? Councillor Ken Howell wishes to come back. Thank you, Chair. I don't agree with you on your wording when you said that it's a monstrosity, because opposite, there's an application in being considered for a home which is far, far larger than this one. But of course that will be given permission because it's within the settlement boundary. No, it's not a monstrosity. Alongside this are about roughly the same size as this application. Thank you. It is a monstrosity because it's outside of the villager settlement boundary. Councillor Peter Cooper. Yes, Chair, there's a few things. I'm a bit concerned about the local needs. I mean, there's something the size of this property on the affordable housing part as well, because at the end of the day, whoever builds this house, what it comes down to at the end of the day is the value of that house once it's completed. And as it has been mentioned, it could be £400,000, £500,000. You know, at the end of the day, once it's built, it's where I would have built it. It's outside the development plan and I've got to be honest, this is one of the biggest ones over the last few years anyway. We've had some big buildings, 220, 240, but this one is very excessive. It's a massive one. And I know it's a reasonably big company, but still, the question is asked about the office. I mean, I've got two sons who work from home, I mean, in a three bedroom house, you know, and they've got children. And what is working from home today? I mean, you've got your laptop, you've got your screen and you've got a couple of, you know, you don't need a massive office to work from home today. Not only that, I think for some reason, I think we've got to be very careful of the local development plan. Now, if we try and pass this through, right, we've got to come up with reasons why and that's going to be difficult with the size of this development. And I'd like to propose that we go along with the recommendation of the officers. Thank you, Councillor Cooper. Councillor Edward Skinner. It's with regard to the LDP that I want to ask a question. Is there any consideration in the future LDP for increasing the boundary limits so that it would fall within? Because it does seem to be when there's the properties of the silk both sides of the road that this one is falling basically just because of the LDP. Thank you, Councillor Skinner. If people have asked to extend the development limits, that will be up to the Welsh parliament officer to decide upon. Thank you, Helen, detailed reporter. Question is, I'm a little bit not confused, how much area would be expected on affordable property with seven family members? Is there an area that there's a guideline on the area if we've got seven members in the family? Because that's what we're looking at here at the moment. I know we've got questions on the LDP and everything, but we're discussing areas of the family canoes within the property. We've asked the questions on the garage, is that within the office? But in reality, is the house too large in our view or too small in our view if we've got seven people living there? If Helen can come back on that, please. Thank you, Councillor Davies. Helen did mention in the report, so perhaps we can go back to Helen, the number of questions there for Helen. How we calculate floor space, evidently we have to look at the entire floor space of the property that's before us. We can't control what those rooms are used for in the future. It's not within our realms to be able to do that in terms of planning, because there might be an office and they could change it into something else in the future without requiring planning permission. As a result of that, we have to consider the total floor space of what is before us, and that includes the garage as well, because as we all know, I've got a garage, a car can't fit in it. So it's a case of those types of, that's the reason why we look at the total floor space. So that hopefully answers the question in terms of what's been looked at. We do also have to consider, I appreciate the comments that have been made in terms of the applicants, but we have to act effectively in the public interest when we look at planning applications, not only on the applicants, but the policy is to enable us to allow local needs dwellings for not only the current applicant, but for the public at large in effect. So it's not just looking at the requirements of the people that we have before us, but also the potential of this property being able to be affordable for people in the future, because we all know we need dwellings that can be affordable for people within our local communities. That's the fundamental reason why we have this policy in place. So there is an obligation on us as a local planning authority to ensure when we do grant planning permissions that we are granting them on the basis that they will be affordable not only for the applicants, but for all future occupiers that would meet the local needs criteria. So that's what we have to consider in this application. In terms of the boundary change that you've mentioned, I have quickly looked to see what the situation is with new LDP, and the boundary is not proposed to be changed in Ross, so that's the draft position, but evidently that will be subject to separate consideration under the examination side of things. In terms of the scale, as the chair mentioned, there is mention in the report that Welsh Development Quality Standards suggest a 10-person bedroom, so it's the largest type of affordable unit that the Welsh Government recognises, would need to have at least a four-space of 152 square metres. So that's what we're looking at for a 10-person bedroom property. So obviously there is a figure for a six-person, which I think is 110, I think, which is in the report. So somewhere in between that would be what Welsh Government suggests would be a standard suitable for a property of this nature. We do apply flexibility to that space of standards for local needs, and it's the degree of flexibility that we do apply. On this one, we consider it's just too far above that requirement at 278 square metres. We have refused, and the Planning Committee has refused, applications for local needs which have been smaller than this property, and hence why we are being consistent to you as officers in our advice in terms of consideration of local needs. As I mentioned, we have sought to negotiate with the applicant to try and reduce this scheme, suggesting what the floor space and the Welsh Government standards would be to see whether they would better reflect that space standard, but they've wished for the application to proceed as it is. I'm not sure if there's anything. Oh yeah, Councillor Sparks, in terms of whether we're looking at this because of the fact that it's a local needs property, the fact is this came in as originally an open market dwelling. We wouldn't have been able to grant the Planning Commission for an open market dwelling at this location because it is entirely outside the settlement boundary, so we'd be entirely in conflict with our local development plan. So we would be unable to have considered an open market dwelling at this location, hence why the change in the application that it was to be considered as a local needs dwelling itself. I think I've answered most of those questions, but if there's anything I've missed, let me know. Thank you, Helen, and apologies to Councillor Allen. I should have asked you to speak before I went back to Helen. Sue? Right, I wasn't aware of the happy news that one of the members mentioned, and my first question was, it was a hypothetical one, I was thinking about what if they have more children, I was just musing on that one, but then obviously that's on the way. I just wondered, can we condition the 106 for affordable in perpetuity, because sometimes two families do join together, you know, and I just wondered if that can be conditioned in case that happens, and in case they sell it, and can we condition any changes, you know, to the garage or something would have to come back for planning permission, can we condition that? And then the other thing is, I was going to ask about WAG policy, about size. I wondered if it's the same criteria in the urban areas as it is in the rural areas for affordable dwellings, because as I recollect, and I hope you correct me on this, when they do housing developments, it used to be 10% affordable in rural areas, and 30% affordable in the city areas, but then that swapped around, I thought, to be 30% in the rural areas, and only 10% affordable in the cities, but perhaps you can correct me on that. So I just wondered about the size. So that were my, they were my questions. Thank you, Councillor Allen. Councillor Elwynn-Williams. Well, for as long as I've sat on this committee, I have no recollection of a family of this size applying for local needs dwelling before, so we've got nothing to compare it with, and the suggestion that only the larger the family, the smaller the house, I'm sorry, I find that impugnant. There's 20 slum housing, but we don't need to enforce more slum housing with restrictive planning rules that cut sizes of houses down, so make it virtually uninhabitable for the large families. We must stop discriminating against large families. Within 10 years, we'll be giving grants for the third and fourth and fifth child to stop housing the population collapse. So let's start today, and whoever is given funding. Thank you, Councillor Williams. Helen. In terms of the section 6 sizing, if a members were to effectively go against officer recommendation and wish to grant planning permission, there's a couple of things that we would have to do. First of all, it would be class as what we call a departure from the local development plan, so we'd have to undertake consultation that's required as part of that issue, because we would consider because of the scale that it would be departing from our local development plan in terms of the policy, given that it's not classed as being affordable property, so there would be that element that would have to be addressed. But in terms of the section 106 side of things, with local needs dwellings, it would have to be subject to a section 106 agreement. It would be difficult to do it because the way in which local needs section 106s apply is that it requires that if the property was to be sold in the future that it can only go to people within local need. And the problem then arises because the scale of the dwelling might enforce people not being able to purchase that property in that local need criteria, so the applicants might find themselves in a situation that they effectively can't sell that property on to somebody in local need. If they can demonstrate that, then they would be able potentially then to sell it on the open market, but as we've had an example that's been before maybe a previous planning committee, where local needs dwelling is of such a scale, if it is having to be sold on the open market, well one, you will lose that local needs dwelling for any future residence in the future, but also there will be a requirement on that applicant to give us the difference between the open market value and what we call the restricted market value of what would have been classed effectively as affordable. Given the scale of this property, that could be substantial, because as I mentioned there are properties of this scale which are potentially on the open market of around 400,000, so you are looking at a substantial difference between what would be classed as an affordable unit in comparison to the open market, so that would be restrictive. And this is the reason why we are trying to ensure that when we do grant planning permissions, because they have to be subject to a section of six, we need to ensure that that section one of six can be enforced, and again in the public interest to maintain that property available for people in local need, and hence why the scale is such a critical element on when we look at local needs situations. So that's that side of things. In terms of your question about the percentages, that only comes into play when we're looking at applications within settlements, so for instance a scheme of more than five dwellings, a percentage is required to be developed for local needs, not local, affordable purposes. That's a separate matter to local needs to a degree, it's a set consideration under a separate policy, but our county is split, it's not split into rural and urban, it's split into different catchment areas where there's been evidence to set out what is the required or viable affordable housing requirement for developments in those certain areas. But that's a slightly separate element when we're looking at applications of more than five dwellings, that's when that comes into consideration, not when we're looking at local needs dwellings. Thank you Helen. Councillor Gareth Thomas. Thank you and thank you for allowing me back in. I've listened attentively to everyone, and of course we have to emphasise that we have to find a reason for going against recommendations. And the H3 policy, of course it has to go to H2, where the first one is a logical extension to the settlement, and we all agree with that because the other side of the road, homes were being built and also homes being built next to it. The impact, yes, you've been brought up about the word monstrosity, Chair, and I think that, I don't think it's a correct description when we see the homes next to it, and they are similar, and the monstrosity is something ugly and large, but I don't agree with that. I could go on and on according to what Helen, and thank you Helen, you're exceptionally good at explaining things. The only place where this falls down is the local needs or the affordability to local needs. From the experience that we have in Hendy, there's a mixture of homes in Hendy, from very small affordable to enormous homes. The word monstrosity could come in in terms of one development in Hendy, taking up two plots, but also it fits into the society that we live in, society mixed up of people who could afford something small or large, and it's important to keep society as it is, that we look at everything. And this is where the future generation comes into it, that we can look ahead to the future in terms of society. I think we should possibly be grateful, and this is tongue in cheek, that anyone wants to live in Roast, because I've passed through it to the lamb and stopped there, but I hadn't realized that the Roast village was so large. And we should be grateful for families who are able to live here and to fit into society, because local needs within our villages will still be the same. This will be a forever home. It could be for 20, 30 years. There won't be any of us around this table in 30 years. Maybe many of us will have long gone and others will have been retired to play golf and to go shopping with their wives. But we have to look at society. We have to look at society, and we have to include everyone. And I think here, and I can quote what Helen has said, Welsh government standards suggests this is policy rather than law. And they suggest, are they suggesting that we have to put suggest in? But we as a committee here, we have the ability and the power and the right, and I'll use that word right, and I don't use it lightly, we do have the right within that suggested and to allow families, because we've questioned to a certain extent, can they afford it? But I don't think that's a question we should ask. Obviously they can afford it before they even put an application. You don't put an application in unless you think that you can complete it. But then we come back to what we call the scale and the end value, and including the low to moderate income. I think we mentioned the medium rather than the average. The medium, those who understand maths, then that's the peak. But someone who could have an income of half a million, that would break the average up. Obviously these are able to afford it, otherwise they won't have submitted it. So where we come under this AH2 and the suggested Welsh government standard and its policy, remember, it's not law. So when we go to a vote for or against it, we will not be breaking the law. Please remember that. But we should also remember this 106 is available, and if they sell it in 10, 20 years' time, then this tax will take it down. They will be penalised at some point if you call the local needs a penalty. But it does give an opportunity for a local family, a Welsh-speaking family, which will enrich this village. And we now as a committee have the power to go against recommendations without breaking any rules or regulations. Its policy is policy. And some policies are law and some are not. So I'm quite comfortable under the AH2 policy to go against the officer recommendation. And the only place I can pick anything up is at the scale of the development. But it takes the box for me. It's not out of reason. And we must also remember that whether it be in a rural village or in an urban area, people within those areas can afford different sized homes from the smallest from the largest. But it's what makes society. It's important that we look after society. And it's an opportunity for us as members of this committee to ensure that society and community of rows from the smallest to the largest. So thank you, chair. Councillor Siwalone. Thank you, chair. I did ask the question about the WAG policy for size. Is it the same in rural as in urban areas? Because I think there's different needs in those areas. So I think the policy should reflect that, you know, the higher level of self-employment in rural areas and things that might require extra support working from home, that sort of thing. So I just wondered, is there a difference in the policy? Can I call you? Dior Karras. Can I have your question, please? May I please ask a question, chair, about the 106? Helen's outlined that it would be quite difficult to enforce. But can I have some advice perhaps from our solicitor if it would be possible to make it enforceable? You know, the scenario where in 10 years' time, when hopefully I might still be around, or even 20, subject to anyone else. Anyway, if it was sold for 500,000, but it was in terms of affordable needs, it was worth 200,000, that we would be asking them to return 300,000. And would that be enforceable? Or would they be able to argue that it was unreasonable? Do you see what I mean? Is that realistic, that we can maintain this local -- if we allow it under local needs, that it would exist under local needs in perpetuity? Is that -- I know it's a precedent for that, please. Dior, congratulations. Well, Gareth. Thank you, Councillor Sparks. I saw Gareth actually looking at you, though, by playing golf in 20 years. And then lastly, Councillor Karras-Jones. Yes, thank you, chair. After all of that, just for me to recap what everyone has said, I agree with everything that has been said. But the policy is clear in the document that Helen has prepared. And it does take every box apart from one. And that one is that the home is too large. We have to be consistent. I know that we are not supposed to consider any other applications outside of this one. But if you're turning applications similar to this and turning them down, then we have to give a reason. We have to know the criteria that's used. And the criteria is the policy that we adhere to. So next week, I can't refuse an application that is not as large as this. We have to refer consistently to the policy or not. But that's the policy we have. So that's the problem, is that is fairness to be treated equally. So that does concern me. Other than that, if this came in smaller and smaller enough than to be acceptable, then I'd be the first to approve this. Thank you. Thank you, Karis. Yes, and we do have a responsibility to be responsible in terms of the decisions that we make. And just one other point. There are examples. We do have examples of large families who have complied with the policy, families with four children. So we do have a way of measuring that on a precedent. Councillor Elwin-Williams. It was raised earlier that they might not be able to sell it in 10, 15 years' time. Well, we've found a solution where we've already got a number of affordable housing. And if they can't sell it, the council buys them because it's cheaper than building a comparable council house. So it's not a problem selling it in 10, 20 years' time. The affordable price will be less than the rebuild cost. And the council with open arms will cover them. They've bought three or four. No hassle whatsoever. So that's not a problem. So I think we should vote for it. Thank you, Councillor Williams. And lastly, Councillor Jean-Louis. Thank you, Chair. In terms of the boundary, and according to what Councillor Karis Jones has stated, in terms of consistency, I would like to say that we have passed or we've been recommended to permit planning for homes where there may be seven homes and they have been outside the settlement limit. And we have been recommended, I'm sure that I'm right here, we have been recommended to permit such developments. So if we're talking about consistency here, I'm not sure whether we are consistent. Thank you. Councillor, thank you, Jean-Louis. Councillor who? On the consistency issue, the situation as we have it as officers is that we get a number of applications for local needs, some that we refuse and some that we approve. But we try and be consistent in our approach. And there are people out there and we're looking at the wider public interest now, not just the interests of the applicants. There are people out there that we've sent to them, identically as we've said in this case, you need to reduce the size and it will be approved. And they've reduced the size below what they wanted, but they've reduced the size in order to comply with the policy. What we have here is someone who is refusing to reduce the size and refusing to comply with the policy. So in terms of consistency, we're trying to be consistent. Councillor Michael Thomas. Thank you, Helen, as well for the detailed report and for your patience, really, to be honest. It feels a lifetime ago that my colleague, Councillor Cooper, proposed that we go with the officers' decision to reject. I'm quite happy to support and second that decision. This feels an awful like, you know, making something fit into something that doesn't fit. You know, it's a, I don't know, a round peg going into a square hole or vice versa. At the end of the day, it is what it is. These are the rules that we've got. These are the regulations that we've got. And as Hugh said, plenty of other families have reduced the size of their application to make it fit in with what our sort of legalities are. This family are refusing to do that. It's simple. There is no option. We just have to reject this. I'm quite happy to support it. Thank you, Councillor Thomas. Are there any questions that need answering? A question in terms of what Welsh Government's, it's a blanket standard that they've applied, so there's nothing that differentiates between different areas and across Wales. Councillor Dorian Phillips. Thank you, Chair. I'll just go back and I'm coming back to this business around the garage, because we have given permission to homes that are smaller than this. But this I know is somewhat larger, but there's a garage and an office included in it. But the size of the home where they actually live, because they're not going to live in the garage, will they? You can put a condition on that that they will not be allowed as a living space because then the home isn't that large. Can we put a condition in that they are not allowed to live in the garage nor in the office? What policy would we use in terms of restricting the use of the garage? Because anybody who has a house with a garage, an integral garage, quite a number, without the requirement for planning permission, use that garage as an extra lounge or a music room or a TV room. They cannot be prevented from doing that. And if we want to prevent people from doing that, we need to say what policy we're using to prevent that happening. Thank you. Before we go to the vote, I'll ask the solicitor to come in, Robert. Councillor Sparks asked the question about the enforceability of the requirements of the Section 106. I don't have any personal experience of a Section 106 requirement of type being discussed but certainly from the quick bit of research that I've done whilst members were debating, it appears to me to be something which would be enforceable. Thank you. Councillor Karys-Jones. I'd just like to come back quickly around this matter around consistency. This committee has allowed estates of affordable homes which go according to policy. So we haven't permitted estates of affordable homes that are 250 square metres. We've permitted estates of affordable homes, for example, on the fringes of the development limits which is within the permitted size within the policy. So that's the difference here. This home is not eligible in terms of size. Thank you. So we'll now go to the vote. It's been proposed and seconded that we should go against the officer's recommendation but an amendment has now come in that we should go with the officer's recommendation and to turn this application down. We'll take the amendment first. Everyone who's in favour of going with the officer's application or recommendation and turn it down, please. Very well, thank you. Please take your hands down. Everyone who wishes to go against the officer's recommendation to please raise your hand. Everyone who wishes to go against the officer's recommendation to please raise your hand. So the vote is eight. Anyone who's abstaining from voting. Any abstentions? One. So we have eight in favour and eight against. So I will go with the officer's recommendation and turn this planning application down. Thank you. So moving on to agenda item four which is on page 19 of the pack and that's the appeals report and if I can ask you to please take us through that report, please. Thank you, chair. The report is in front of you and I don't have anything to add unless members have questions. Any questions, please? I'm sure that you're welcome to speak to the officer then. Oh, sorry, Gareth. Councillor Gareth Thomas. Thank you, chair. Just looking at the list, is this getting longer or am I imagining it? It is getting longer, unfortunately. Is there a reason for it getting longer? Because I can see, Pedro, more people are challenging what or are there more planning matters coming in? So you may be thinking why are these people putting in for planning and then they appeal. I'll take it then from the last one, the determined, it says dismissed. I take it that that then lost its appeal or has it won the appeal? Dismissed means that we've won. So the appeal has been turned down. But there are more applications coming through than we've had previously. Some of the reasons is that we are opposing more and some of the reasons behind that increase in opposition is that we are then proposing to people to make changes but they're not making those changes. So after a certain amount of time, if they don't make those changes, then we oppose them. Because we can't keep hold of them for any length of time in the hope that someone will change something at some point. Thank you, Hugh. So shall we proceed to item oh, Councillor Dorian Phillips, sorry. Thank you, Chair. I'm just asking for an update on the Spring Well in Lombardy. And I've heard that you've heard back. So perhaps could we have an update? I'll provide an update to you at the moment because we are seeking further advice from Council as to our position. So it's not something we can put in the public domain and I can't comment on it at this moment. I would imagine that by the time we get to your next meeting, we will be able to comment on it. Thank you, Hugh. Councillor Jean Lewis, in terms of these appeals, who feeds, who actually then stands up in terms of the decision or who opposes, who puts that forward? Is it the community councils? Is it the County Councillor? You as a department? If you could just give me a little bit of an explanation on how things work, please. We receive appeal notifications from the appellant when they put the application in, which is why the list is in three parts. We know an appeal has been submitted when it goes in because we have to be copied into that. Then we have a second section when it's been accepted by PDU and a third section where we have the decisions. When it's accepted by PDU and validated, there's a timeframe that we have to meet and it will be one of three different timeframes depending on how they want to deal with the case. If it's a written representations case where we just write our statement of case, as does the appellant, and the inspector just looks at it, they can be done relatively quickly. The second stage is an informal hearing. If the inspector decides they want to test some of the evidence or ask questions of the parties, we will put a statement of case in there and we'll turn up to the hearing and the inspector will ask the questions the inspector wants answered. There's no advocates in that type of scenario. It's just an informal, led by the inspector. And then the third one is where you have a formal public inquiry where you're likely to have to give a witness statement, evidence on oath, and be cross-examined. In all of those cases, the primary person who would lead that appeal would be the case officer other than in cases where members have made a decision contrary to officer advice and we can't defend that appeal, then the member who proposed and the member who seconded would be expected to defend that appeal. But in most cases, it will be the case officer. We will on occasions, particularly in a public inquiry, take legal colleagues with us, and in the extremist of cases, we may well take counsel with us, but that does not happen very often. >> Thank you, Hill. Councillor Sue Allen? >> Just a question. In the decision-making boxes, it mentions delegated decisions, which I understand that we don't see them and they just happen. And then it says as per officer recommendation. Does that mean it's been to committee or what does that mean exactly? >> Yeah, that means it's been to committee and the committee decision was as per officer recommendation. Sometimes you have an appeal where it says contrary to officer recommendation. That's when the committee has gone against officer advice. But the delegated ones are the ones that are done by officers under the constitution. >> Thank you, Hill. Just like to make a comment, because we all have lots of enforcements in our areas. That's why the list is becoming longer. It's because PDU is taking so long to consider appeals. And that that means that the lists are becoming longer and longer. It can take up to a year to hear an appeal. So I don't know whether we as a committee should be expressing our disappointment that these aren't actually being dealt with in the way which they should. I know historically some have taken even longer. Even to begin being considered. And it can take up to a further six months to wait for the result. And I don't think that that is acceptable. So I don't know whether we should respond to that as a committee. What is your opinion, Councillor Dorian Phillips? Well, you've mentioned that about PDU, but going back to Springwell, they've responded very quickly in that respect from when it was turned down here. And I think that's been responded to very quickly. It depends on the application. I looked at one yesterday. Because PDU did say that on the 4th of July last year that they wanted a hearing. And it hasn't taken place yet. So some of them are relatively quick. It depends on how many inspectors are available probably. And some are very slow. Councillor Elwin Williams. The host has turned my video off. Can the host please turn my video back on, please? We can hear you. You're back on now. I don't know why I was turned off. I don't know. No idea. So we'll proceed then to the next item, item number 5. And item 5.1 to confirm and sign that the minutes of the meeting that was held on the 23rd of May are true and correct. Do we have someone who is willing to propose, please? And a seconder. All in agreement? Thank you. Anyone against? No. That's unanimous. So 5.2 to sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on the 4th of June. Do we have a proposer, please? Thank you. All in agreement? Thank you. Please take your hands down. Thank you. Anyone against? Councillor Antilay Sean against? Anyone abstaining? Councillor Edward Skinner abstaining? Thank you. He's just taken his hand down. Thank you, Anthony. And I think that's it. That brings us to the end of today's meeting. And may I thank you all for your patience. It's been a very exciting meeting and a very fair and equitable meeting. Can I now ask officers to turn the webcasting off, please?