20 affordable homes at Land At Ffordd Y Bedol, Coed y Cwm, Pontypridd

The site and surroundings

The 0.56-hectare greenfield site contained trees and vegetation within a residential area, with nearby homes, an informal footpath and protected trees nearby.

“The trees on the area of Council-owned land to the north-west form part of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO; 348; 1952); however, the protected area is detached from the application site boundary by approximately 40m. There is a record of an individual protect tree at the north-eastern boundary of the site (TPO; 2;1995), which relates to an Oak tree; however, it is not clear if this tree still exists.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the layout could not fully mitigate habitat and species loss, demonstrate biodiversity betterment or evidence three-for-one tree replacement.

“RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE REASON: Although the application site is located within defined settlement limits and would provide for much needed affordable housing in the area, there is insufficient capacity within the proposed site layout to be able to fully mitigate for habitat and species loss.”

Officer report

What local people said

Objections covered traffic, parking, safety, appearance, privacy, green space, biodiversity, drainage, flooding, services, housing need and anti-social behaviour.

“The site is the only safe place for children and dogs to play. • The development would cut off access to Council-owned land to the north- west which would become hidden from view. • The retained green space would serve the SuDs system rather than offer meaningful green space for the community. • The loss of green space will negatively affect residents’ mental health. • The proposed green corridor is not usable green space.”

“There are concerns with the site’s vulnerability to crime, including lack of secure boundaries, poor layout, inadequate defensible space and risks of anti- social behaviour. • The development will result in unwanted behaviour and crime. • The area of land to the north-west is likely to become a site of anti-social behaviour and will likely experience fly tipping. • The most recent plans do not address the problem of anti-social behaviour associated with 1 bed flats.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent, applicant and four objectors addressed the committee, while a local member spoke against the development; the agent and applicant declined to respond.

The committee vote

The committee resolved to refuse the application in accordance with the Director’s recommendation, with one councillor not taking part in the vote.

“The Head of Planning presented the application to Committee and following consideration it was RESOLVED to refuse the application in accordance with the recommendation of the Director, Housing and Regeneration.”

“(Note: County Borough Councillor M Powell left the meeting during the presentation and did not take part in the vote.)”

Minutes

The decision and reason

Permission was refused because the proposal breached natural-environment policy through insufficient habitat mitigation, biodiversity betterment evidence and tree-replacement evidence.

“The proposal is contrary to Policy AW8 of the Rhondda Cynon Taf Local Development Plan and Planning Policy Wales 12 in that there is insufficient capacity within the proposed site layout to be able to fully mitigate for habitat and species loss. There is also no realistic capacity to evident biodiversity betterment, and insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate how the 3 to 1 tree replacement is to be met within the proposal.”

Officer report