Re-submission of a previous application to import inert materials in order to raise existing ground levels.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Lesley Day
Minutes:
Re-submission of a previous application to import
inert material in order to raise existing ground levels.
(a) The Senior Planning Officer - Minerals and
Waste elaborated on the background of the application noting that the site had
been designated for development in the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan (GUDP).
It was explained that residential development was about to be completed on
nearby land and that this application was for the undertaking of engineering
work and raising the land levels to provide a site for further development. It
was noted that it was proposed to raise the land level by placing material
deriving from excavation works associated with the development on adjacent land
and transporting a further 19,000 tonnes of inert material to the area in order
to raise the land levels.
It
was noted that a number of specialist assessments had been received as part of
the application.
It
was reported that discussions had been held with Natural Resources Wales (NRW),
the Biodiversity Unit and the Public Protection Unit and they had no objection
to the application. It was noted that
there would be a temporary increase in traffic movements but the Transportation
Unit did not have any objection to the proposal provided that relevant
conditions were imposed.
Attention
was drawn to the additional observations received noting that the RSPB had
withdrawn its objection, provided that the mitigation measures would be
implemented.
The
development complied with the GUDP for the reasons noted in the report.
(b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted the following main points:-
·
That he was speaking on behalf of the Bangor Civic
Society;
·
That they did not object to the principle of
developing the site;
·
That the land would continue to be located near a
flood zone, even after raising the land levels;
·
That the plan before the committee would not be
undertaken to provide protection against flooding in the Hirael
Bay Area but rather it would be done to prepare the site for development;
·
Matters regarding land contamination and the nature
of the materials previously deposited on the site should be resolved before
considering developing the land, bearing in mind the legal risks of building on
contaminated land;
·
Concern regarding the stability of the land and the
impact on the Traeth Lafan
Site of Special Scientific Interest;
·
Should the application be approved, a request was
made for a much stricter regulatory process.
(c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the
following main points:-
·
That the site had been restricted as it was located
within a C2 Flood Zone;
·
That this work was preparatory work for the purpose
of further developing the site;
·
That the proposal would
involve improving the sea defences and enabling the flood category of the site
to change;
·
That the proposal would not have a detrimental
impact on the designations;
·
That the proposal would
contribute to the re-development of this empty site.
(ch) The local member (not a member of this Planning
Committee) noted the following main points:-
·
That she, the local community and specialist bodies
had concern in connection with the proposal;
·
That officers had been informed that waste had
already been tipped on the site and that a section of the application site was
retrospective as a result;
·
That the site was open to erosion and her concerns
regarding the stability of the land;
·
That the proposal was contrary to policies B28, B29
and B30 of the GUDP;
·
That the land was contaminated and that there was a
risk for the contaminated material to move to Hirael
Bay;
·
Concern regarding the development's impact on
designated shellfish waters;
·
Should the application be approved, there was a
need to ensure a suitable design and for a strict monitoring process to be in
place with a clear, independent audit trail;
·
That the proposal would not prevent flooding in Hirael Bay;
·
That there was a risk to human health as the site
included asbestos, mercury, lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in potentially
hazardous concentrations. Therefore, a
condition should be imposed to deal with the contaminated land now, rather than
when an application for housing is considered in the future;
·
That the lorry hours condition should be amended to
between 09:00 - 16:00 Mondays to Fridays to avoid peak hours;
·
That there was a need to tidy the site of the
Former Dickies Boat Yard.
(d) In response to the observations of the
local member, the Senior Planning Officer - Minerals and Waste noted:-
·
That it was intended to enclose waste on the site
to prevent the pollution from escaping from the site;
·
The land had not been recorded on the register of
contaminated land;
·
That it was intended to create an embankment around
the site and place rip-rap material on top to protect the site;
·
That any application for development in the future
would be decided on its own merits and that the aim was to provide a site for
development.
(dd) A member noted that the application should be
refused because NRW required further information. In response, the Senior
Planning Service Manager drew attention to the late observations received from
NRW noting that they were willing to deal with the matters regarding the
details of the practical environmental measures and the seawall by means of a
planning condition.
It was proposed to defer the application in order to receive further
information in terms of the concerns presented by the local member. The
proposal was seconded.
(e) During the ensuing discussion, the following main
observations were noted:
·
Concern regarding the risk of pollution escaping
from the site as there were mussel beds nearby and this would affect the food
chain;
·
NRW's observations had not convinced a member that
no concerns derived from the proposal;
·
Had the waste being tipped on the site received
permission already or was it extending the site?
·
Had the applicant contacted the Crown Estate?
·
That considerable information had been submitted as
part of the application;
·
Concern regarding the waste tipped on the site;
·
Would the developer be able to appeal based on a
failure to reach a decision should the application be deferred?
·
That there was a need to ensure that the
information presented was firm scientific evidence.
(f) In response to the above observations, the
officers noted:-
·
That detailed technical reports had been submitted
as part of the application, including an environmental assessment in accordance
with the habitats regulations;
·
A request was made for further confirmation from
NRW that they were convinced that the proposal was acceptable as a result of
the concerns;
·
A request was also made for the Public Protection
Unit to confirm its standpoint;
·
That any building site had development rights,
including, a temporary builders yard and materials storage. The intention of the application was to
receive permission to retain the materials on the site and add additional
materials in order to raise the land levels and to extend the site;
·
That the application before the committee was a
re-submission of an application that was withdrawn and that the applicant had
given notice to the Crown Estate, Penrhyn Estate, on
the site and in the press before submitting the application;
·
Carrying the material from the site could cause
dust and disturbing the material could cause pollution. Residents would be
disturbed due to lorry traffic if this would be done.
·
The proposal was to carry inert material there to
cap the materials currently on the site;
·
In terms of the mussel beds, the Public Protection
Unit did not have concerns about the methodology and no objection had been
received from the Menai Straits Fishery Order
Association;
·
That NRW had requested the details of the
Construction Environmental Management Plan by means of a condition;
·
That there was a risk that the applicant could
appeal based on the failure to reach a decision; however, the applicant had to
provide further information, and outside the planning system he needed to
obtain an environmental licence from NRW and a marine licence before the
development could commence. Therefore,
it was unlikely that he would not agree to the time extension;
·
That the information received would reiterate the
scientific information included in the report before the committee.
RESOLVED to defer the application.
Supporting documents: