Issue - meetings

Other Matters

Meeting: 26/07/2017 - Planning and Orders Committee (Item 13)

13 Other Matters pdf icon PDF 180 KB

13.1 13C194 – Llwyn Llinos, Bodedern

Additional documents:

Decision:

13.1    13C194 – Outline application for the erection of three affordable dwellings which include details of access, appearance, layout and scale on land opposite Llwyn Llinos, Bodedern

 

RESOLVED that the conditions attached to the consent be amended in accordance with the Officer’s report.

Minutes:

13.1    13C194 – Outline application for the erection of three affordable dwellings which include details of access, appearance, layout and scale on land opposite Llwyn Llinos, Bodedern

 

The Planning Development Manager reported that the Committee approved the application at its 26 April, 2017 meeting subject to conditions and subject to a Section 106 agreement to ensure the development is delivered as affordable housing for local needs. The Inspector’s report in relation to the JLDP proposes no change to the boundary of the village and the application continues to be considered an exception site.

 

The developer has made inquiries with the Highways Authority regarding the necessity of providing a pavement to the frontage of the properties. The Highways Authority has confirmed that the provision of such a pavement which it previously sought from the developer is not necessary as there is a pavement on the opposite side of the road and as the application is for affordable housing where the costs of provision would be prohibitive. However, it remains necessary to set back the frontage of the site to the width of a pavement to ensure pedestrian safety. The Section 106 agreement is being prepared and it is proposed to amend the conditions accordingly.

 

The Committee sought clarification of the timing of the request given that the pavement opposite existed at the time of the scheme’s approval when provision of a pavement was sought by the Highways Authority.

 

The Highways Officer said that although the provision of a pavement would be beneficial, the case for insisting on such is weak in the context of a challenge. The developer did at the time put forward reasons for not having to provide a pavement. The Officer confirmed that the visibility in relation to the proposal is satisfactory and provides the maximum 90m on either side.

 

Councillor Kenneth Hughes proposed and was seconded by Councillor Vaughan Hughes that the conditions be amended in accordance with the Officer’s report.

 

It was resolved that the conditions attached to the consent be amended in accordance with the Officer’s report.