Retrospective application to retain a pontoon within the quay.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth Wyn
Griffith
Link to relevant background documents
Minutes:
Retrospective application to retain a pontoon within the quay.
(a) The Development
Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that it was a retrospective
application to retain a pontoon within the quay that was located
on the northern wall of the
harbour and linked to three locations which would allow the pontoon to be raised with the tide. It was noted that
the site was part of the existing marina and the harbour wall was a Grade II listed structure.
Attention was drawn to the objections and the engineering report that stated that
the installation of the pontoon
was unlikely to have any detrimental effect from a harbour
structural engineering standpoint.
Following the committee's resolution in September 2016, the objectors were given an opportunity
to provide and submit their own
engineering report and it did not appear from their
report that the wall was in a poor state
of repair nor was it under any
threat from the pontoon. In the report's conclusion it was suggested that a condition be imposed to monitor
the wall regularly, as a fair mitigation measure. In addition,
the opinion of Gwynedd Consultancy
on the report was received and it
was confirmed that it had been undertaken
by a recognised company and the recommendations were fair. It was not considered that the contents of the new report by the objectors
had submitted any new evidence and
therefore the recommendation
had not changed from the previous recommendations.
It was explained that the application was now subject of an appeal
for a lack of decision and in
order to enable officers to deal with the appeal the Committee was requested to confirm its stance
on the application and authorise the officers to submit the appeal case on
behalf of the Council. It was recommended that the Committee delegate powers to officers to deal with the appeal
for a lack of decision and to confirm that the Council's view would be to recommend approval of the application with a condition and a note to regularly
monitor the condition of the wall.
(b) On behalf of the
area's residents, the Local Member (not a member of this Planning Committee) objected to the application and noted the following
main points:
·
The importance
that Committee members were aware of all the contents of the engineering
report
·
That several
people opposed the application
·
The wall was over 100 years old and
its condition was unknown
·
Although various
reports had been submitted it was felt that no full survey of the wall had been
undertaken
·
The area's residents
did not object to all the pontoons,
however, they objected to this type that was attached
with brackets to the
wall
·
An e-mail had been
received from the applicant's agent stating that he was willing to remove the
pontoon during winter from 1 November to 1 March and in addition he was
prepared to conduct an annual visual inspection
·
It should be
ensured that the condition stated regular monitoring
·
There was concern
regarding public safety if there were any problems with the pontoon
(c) In response, the Senior Planning
Service Manager noted the concerns of the member and local residents,
however, he drew attention to the fact that the application
was in the hands of the Planning Inspectorate. The Committee was reminded that the application had been submitted for over
12 months and had been deferred several
times to receive reports. Stemming from all the reports, it was stated that there
was nothing to state that the development would exacerbate the situation in terms
of the structural credibility
of the harbour wall. It was
stressed to the Committee that the application should be dealt with based on
the contents of the evidence
before them.
(ch) The planning officers’ recommendation was proposed and seconded.
(d) During the ensuing discussion, the following concerns were highlighted:
·
That any new development should be sustainable and had to work, however, in this case
the lifespan of the wall was unknown
·
It was felt that the
Committee was on shaky ground with this application bearing in mind the
contents of the ARUP report
·
Several members
noted that they were not convinced that the development would be sustainable
·
There was concern
regarding public safety
(dd) In response to the concerns highlighted above, the Senior Planning
Service Manager explained that the reports stated that it was unlikely
that there would be any additional
impact on the wall structure as a result of the pontoon. It was further noted that
confirmation
had been received that the applicant would remove the pontoon over the winter months.
(a) Whilst understanding the concerns, the
Senior Solicitor explained that civil responsibilities
outside
the planning system fell on landowners and
that the Committee took decisions on planning based on the evidence submitted. Although the reports were superficial, evidence before them stated
that there was currently no impact
to be seen and it was added that it
was not possible to predict
what may occur in years
to come.
Resolved: To delegate powers to officers to deal with the appeal for a lack of decision
and to confirm that the Council's view would be to recommend approval of the application in accordance with the plans submitted and a note to regularly
monitor the condition of the wall.
Supporting documents: