Application under Section 73 to vary condition 2 on planning permission C15/1081/11/LL to extend the timescale to complete the development in accordance with the application plans.
LOCAL MEMBER:
Councillor Huw Gruffydd Wyn Jones
Minutes:
Application under Section 73 to vary condition 2 on
permission number C15/1081/11/LL to extend the timescale to complete the
development in accordance with the application's plans.
Attention was
drawn to the late observations forms
a)
The
Senior Planning Manager – Minerals and Waste expanded on the background of the
application, noting that approval had already been given on the application in December
2016. It was highlighted that this application was subject to planning
conditions and one of these were to work within a period of nine months. It was
noted that this was an application to change the condition to ensure sufficient
time to complete the development in accordance with the application's plan. It
was explained that the work of raising the land levels had taken place and the
purpose of this was to raise the land above the C2 flood level so that
engineering work could be considered to provide the land for further
development. Any future application on the site would be a new application.
It
was noted that the work of raising the land level had taken place between April
and July 2018 within a period of 8 - 10 weeks. The next step would be to place
stones around the site which would create a defence so that the slate waste
would not wash away. It was reported in the original application that some of
the foreshore needed to be excavated in order to place the stones as a firm
foundation.
It
was highlighted that some of the late objections and observations were
concerned about leachate that would pollute fisheries. It was added that this
had been considered in the original application. In addition, attention was
drawn to observations from Public Protection which noted that it must be
ensured that the work of placing the stones around the site would not create a
detrimental impact on the amenities of nearby residents. It was reported that
7,000 large stones needed to be moved to the site in a period of 14 weeks.
Noise impacts would be more likely than the dust impacts.
It
was noted that the applicant had submitted water sample results to the
Authority and that the results currently noted that it would be likely for
leachate to pollute the marine environment. It was added that the Biodiversity
Unit and Natural Resources Wales had received concerns about the birds that
were hibernating on the site during high tide. It was noted that the applicant
had conducted two surveys (either in 2016 and one was ongoing) showing that
there was an increase in the number of birds that were gathering, but this
would reduce as the season would come to an end.
It
was noted that Japanese knotweed had come to the site, and it was expressed
that the applicant had to deal with this plant before beginning on any
development work. It was added that it would be the responsibility of Natural
Resources Wales to monitor this.
b)
Taking
advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted the following points:
·
That
she was representing the opinion of residents of 22 nearby properties
·
It
was disappointing that the applicant had not completed the work within the
timescale
·
Bangor
City Council had been highlighting concerns about what was buried under the
land since the 80's.
·
During
the work in summer 2017, there was dust everywhere, lorries drove at a speed
faster than 5mph. The majority of the conditions had been breached - a request
had been made to the Authority to hold a meeting with the applicant. What
certainty was there that the applicant would conform to the conditions this
year?
·
Reference
was made in the report that the work's timescale was 'quite short' - 14 weeks
was not short!
·
It
was disappointing that working hours included Saturday mornings - a request for
the Committee to abolish this
·
Traffic
and access matters - the Beach Road roundabout was very dangerous, and there
was concern that there would be accidents here in the near future, especially
with additional traffic movements
c) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following
points:
·
The
original application had been approved in December 2016
·
Work
had been carried out to raise the site's current level. Consequently, Natural
Resources Wales had re-categorised the site by moving it out of a flood zone
and a step forward towards creating a site with a potential to develop it
·
Rip
rap needed to be placed in order to complete the work to protect the site
·
No
application for a marine licence could be made until the land had been
re-categorised. Awaiting a licence in spring 2018 which would allow this work
to move forward
·
The
applicant had worked closely with Natural Resources Wales to address the
environmental and architectural matters
·
Permission
for the work had already been approved
·
Recommendations
and conditions would ensure management of the work
ch) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
Local Member (a member of this Planning Committee) made the following points:
·
The
area was contentious in Bangor
·
Concerns
about Japanese knotweed. There was a moral duty to destroy the plant
·
The
plant would have an impact on the site's value
·
Needed
to ensure that the plant was destroyed before beginning any work on the site
·
There
was a suggestion to include a condition
d) In
response to the Local Member's observation, it was noted that the implications
of imposing a condition would need to be considered. First of all, evidence
would be required that the plant existed and then consider how to deal with the
plant. It appeared that it would be possible to consider the agreement's
timescale and duration, and a condition to deal with the Japanese knotweed.
dd) It
was proposed and seconded to defer the application.
e) During the ensuing discussion, the following
points were highlighted by individual members:
·
Needed
to deal with the Japanese knotweed before taking further steps
·
Needed
to call an expert in to seek a professional opinion and ensure that the plant
was destroyed correctly
·
Needed
to ensure that it would be treated with a chemical that would not have an
impact on the mussels
·
A
request was made for proof / a certificate that the plant had been destroyed
before beginning on the development
·
If
the application would be approved in future - work Monday to Friday only - no
Saturdays
RESOLVED to defer
the application
- need more
information and evidence on how the developer would deal with the plant
Supporting documents: