Removal of affordable housing restriction at Rhan O Gae Ger Penboncyn, Pwllheli

What was proposed

The application sought to remove a legal agreement requiring a permitted house to remain affordable, with a discount of at least 40%.

“Proposal: Re-submission of an application previously refused to remove a 106 agreement relating to the erection of an affordable house permitted under reference C10D/0017/33/LL on part of a field near Penboncyn, Boduan, Pwllheli.”

“Description: This is a re-submission of a previously refused application, which is an attempt to remove a 106 agreement attached to planning permission C10D/0017/33/LL. This agreement was drawn up to ensure and protect the use of the property as an affordable unit with a discount of up to 40%.”

Officer report

The site and proposed house

The unbuilt house would be a single-storey, four-bedroom detached dwelling in open countryside outside the development boundary.

“The site is lo- cated within the rural area of Boduan which is far outside of any current development boundary and therefore in open countryside. In such a case, usual planning considerations are not assessed as in common cases. Therefore, at- tention is not given to matters relating to design, impact on amenities, transport, biodiversity, lan- guage etc.”

Officer report

Why officers advised refusal

Officers considered the agreement remained relevant, necessary and useful because affordable housing was still needed and no alternative guarantee was offered.

“Assessment of the relevant planning considerations: The principle of the development 5.1 The principle regarding the circumstances under which an application for removing a legal agree- ment under Section 106 may be made is explained in detail in Circular 13/97 Planning Obliga- tions.”

“Therefore, it is believed that there is sufficient up-to-date information to confirm the need for local affordable housing in the area of Boduan, and the agreement is therefore still considered as being relevant in terms of this test. That it is directly related to the proposed development; - the agreement refers directly to the provision of an affordable unit. The agreement is still relevant in terms of this test. 4.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

The community council supported removal, while housing evidence identified local need and two residents objected to removing the restriction.

“Community/Town Council: On behalf of Buan Community Council, we wish to support application: C26/0057/33/RC - part of field near Penboncyn, Boduan to discharge the 106 agreement relating to the erection of an affordable house permitted under reference C10D/0017/33/LL.”

“Public Consultation: A notice was posted on the site and nearby residents were notified. The advertisement period has expired, and two letters / items of correspondence have been received objecting on the following grounds: • The application is flawed because the argument that a local person/family could not afford the property is incorrect as the figures given in relation to a mortgage lending sum is misleading and in fact local residents would be able to af- ford to buy…”

Officer report

What the agent said

The agent said the house was too large and expensive to be genuinely affordable, and that a commuted payment would be excessive.

The decision and reasons

The committee refused removal because the agreement continued to secure affordable housing for local need and its removal would undermine planning policies.

“It is considered that the Section 106 Agreement that restricts the property to an affordable house for local need continues to serve a relevant purpose for planning use, and therefore, that is continues to secure necessary use in accordance with the guidance provided in 'Planning Obligations' Community Infrastructure Levy 2010 and Circular 13/97, Planning Policy Wales, Chapter 3 "Making and Enforcing Planning Decisions" and the Town and Country Planning (Modification and…”

Minutes