Retrospective
application to retain pontoon within the dock
Local Member:
Councillor Gareth Griffith
Minutes:
Retrospective
application to retain a pontoon within the quay.
(a) The Development Control Manager reported on the background of the
application and noted that the application had been postponed many times for a
number of reasons listed in the report.
Members were reminded that
this was a full retrospective application to retain a pontoon within the quay.
It was explained that the pontoon was linked to the harbour wall in three
locations by an iron bracket which allowed the pontoon to rise with the tide.
It was noted that the site was part of the existing marina in Felinheli.
Attention was drawn to the
late observations received.
It was highlighted that the
objections received drew attention to the condition of the harbour wall and the
ability of that wall to be able to support a pontoon where parts of the wall
had collapsed in the past. It was noted that this raised concern as to whether
the wall was structurally sound enough to be able to support the pontoon and
the tide. It was noted that an engineering report had been submitted with the application
stating that installing the pontoon was unlikely to have any detrimental effect
from a structural engineering standpoint.
Following the Committee's
decision to request more information, and the consequent receipt of the update
to the structural assessment, a Surveyor within the Council was consulted to
confirm whether the report received was fit for purpose. Reference was made to
the surveyor's observations in paragraph 5.4 of the report.
Despite this assessment, from
the response to the re-consultation, it was noted that concerns remained about
the situation and the content of the latest report. However, no specialist
advice had been received which stated the contrary and was no reason,
therefore, not to accept the finding and advice noted in the most recent report
by Richard Broun Associates.
It was reported that the new
pontoon was in keeping with the area in terms of design and appearance and in
that it was a working marina. There were no implications to the appearance or
character of the listed structure or on the area’s amenities or nearby
residents, and it was outlined that the submitted engineering report contained
an update stating that the wall was strong enough to support the pontoon. It
was considered that the proposal was acceptable and in accordance with relevant
policies.
(b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector
noted the following main points:-
·
That the 87 objectors had
no objections to the pontoon, only an objection to attaching a pontoon on an
old Victorian wall - much relevant information was received from local
residents about the effect of the wall and tide
·
That the wall was subject
to wind and adverse weather and high tide
·
That part of the wall had
collapsed in 2000
·
That the pontoon had been
installed in 2001 and within a few years the wall had begun to show some signs
of stress. These concerns were raised with the Council but no action was taken.
That in 2008 the wall had collapsed into the sea along with residents' gardens
·
That in December 2015, the
pontoon had come free and was floating in the Harbour
·
That
there was no reference to the 'vertical crack' on the wall in the Engineer's
report
·
No solution was suggested
with regard to the crack in the wall - this had been dismissed - each aspect
must be considered
·
Observations
by residents had been ignored and consequently the residents had decided to
commission an independent report to present their concerns.
·
Other
possible methods of solving this situation would be to connect the pontoon in a
different way
(c)
Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main
points:-
·
That
the application had been submitted since July 2015
·
Since then, four officer
reports had been submitted to the Committee with a recommendation to approve
·
The decision had been deferred
due to concerns about using the pontoon wall (collapse and crack in the wall) -
no technical information had been submitted to corroborate this
·
Acknowledgement that there was
concern about the impact of the wall but that no evidence had been submitted to
support the concerns
·
Structural reports had been
submitted within 12 months of each other - the results were consistent and
confirmed that there were no adverse effects. This had been verified by an
Engineer for the Council
·
The wall did not show signs of
distress and there were no signs that the rocks that supported the pontoon were
moving
·
The existence of the crack had
no bearing on the loading imposed on the pontoon
·
There was no evidence to
suggest that anything was affecting the wall in a way that would create
structural instability in future
·
Each application must be
considered on its own merits and any objections must be valid planning reasons
·
Should
the application be deferred or refused, the Authority could face costs if the
applicant was to appeal
(ch) The following main points were made by the
local member (not a member of this Planning Committee):- Taking advantage of
the right to speak the Local Member stated that:
·
A
decision was needed on the application
·
Local
residents were highlighting concern due to problems with the wall
·
The survey had not considered
the engineering report and this, therefore, necessitates a more detailed report
·
Confirmation required that, if
the pontoon were to become disconnected, compensation would be available for
residents
·
Request
to defer for another month in order to allow the residents the opportunity to
commission an engineer's report that can be considered
·
Errors
in the report had come to light
·
An additional report would be
valuable because, if something were to happen, each aspect would have been
fully considered
(d) In response to the observations, the Senior Planning Service Manager
reminded the Committee that the application had been submitted to the Committee
several times over the past 12 months and that plenty of time had been
available during this period for residents to prepare further evidence. He
reiterated the fact that reports had been submitted and that there was no
technical evidence/information to counter these reports. It was also noted that
the applicant was considering submitting an appeal and this was, therefore,
highlighted as a risk.
It
was proposed and seconded to defer the application for a month.
It was argued that civil
matters existed and that, as such, it was necessary to consider who would be
responsible for rebuilding the wall should it collapse. It was noted that an
Independent Structural Report would be acceptable.
In response to the proposal,
the Solicitor stated that this would provide sufficient opportunity for
objectors to submit a structural report / evidence only.
(dd)
During
the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted:
·
That an extra month would be
acceptable for the objectors to submit their observations in a report
·
That it would be reasonable to
defer as the residents / objectors would assent to the final decision of that
report
·
That
the Committee had to behave responsibly
·
Complicating the situation had
to be avoided - suggested that the report be submitted to the Council's experts
for their opinion (the report needed to be tracked)
·
Concern was raised whether the
report would be ready within the Planning Committee schedule. A period of a month
was not sufficient - necessary to decide on a specific date
·
A pontoon not attached to the
wall would have been wiser
·
If the application were
approved, the development should be implemented in accordance with any
permission granted;
·
Had consideration been given
to the observation by Natural Resources Wales that a marine licence was
necessary?
(e)
In
response to these observations, the Senior Planning Service Manager noted that:
·
in the context of the marine
licence, this was specific to the licensing arrangements and system of Natural
Resources Wales.
·
in response to the suggestion
that a condition be imposed to ensure that the applicant carried out regular
inspections of the wall, it was stated that clear guidelines were in place for
the consideration of imposing planning conditions. It was considered that no
justification or evidence existed for imposing this condition - in such a
situation placing a note for the applicant's information would be suitable.
Additionally, it was noted that inspection requirements were likely to be
within the Harbour's remit and beyond those of the planning procedure.
·
if the intention was to defer,
restricting to a specific period of a month was realistic in terms of the
administrative procedures of the Planning Committee. A suggestion was made to
resubmit the application in the October 2016 Committee meeting.
RESOLVED to defer
the application in order to give objectors the opportunity to submit their own
engineer's report and to do so within three weeks (by 26/9/16) so that the
application can be re-submitted to the Planning Committee on 17 October 2016.
Supporting documents: