Erection of a A3 unit (cafe) with drive-thru construction of parking spaces and two new vehicular access and felling of trees.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Steve Collings
Minutes:
Erection of an A3 unit (café) with a
drive-thru, creation of parking areas and two new vehicular access and tree
felling.
(a) The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application and
noted that the Planning Committee had visited the above site and that this had
been useful to see the context of the application, which was a triangular plot
of land on Deiniol Road, Bangor, off the junction
serving Asda, Sackville Road and the rest of Deiniol
Road. Attention was drawn to the fact that the site was in a prominent area
which served as one of the main access points into and out of the city. It was
noted that there were a number of trees on the site that were protected under a
Tree Preservation Order.
Reference was made
to the responses to the two periods of public consultation as part of the
report.
Attention was drawn to paragraphs 5.2 to 5.13 of the report which referred
to the principle of the development and despite the fact that the application
had satisfied some of the requirements of the relevant policy, that it had been
unable to show compliance with the requirements of other policies.
In the context of highway impacts, the Planning Committee's attention
was drawn to paragraphs 5.21 to 5.29 of the report and that there were clear
concerns in these matters and it could be seen on the site visit the increase
in traffic as cars waited outside the site for a relatively short period. It was noted further that the application did
not show a provision for servicing / delivery vehicles and that lorries would
have to reverse into or out of the site as the drive-thru element was unsuitable for larger vehicles.
Therefore, on the whole, it was noted that all highway matters showed that the
site, due to its restricted nature, was unsuitable for this proposed scale of
use without the possibility that it would have a detrimental impact on road
safety.
In terms of protected trees, it was noted that there were a number of
trees on the site and that they were protected under a Tree Preservation Order.
It was noted that the proposal included the felling of all existing trees on
the site and one tree on nearby land.
These matters had been dealt with in paragraphs 5.32 to 5.40 of the
report and it was emphasised that the authority continued to be of the opinion
that it was unacceptable to lose all the trees on this site.
Attention was drawn to the concerns of the Biodiversity Unit and based
on the information submitted, it was considered that the application failed to
satisfy the relevant policy.
After carrying out
a full assessment of all material considerations and planning policies,
including the objections and observations submitted to support the plan, the
recommendation of the planning officers was to refuse the application as it was
unacceptable, in accordance with the reasons noted in the report submitted.
(b)
Taking
advantage of the right to speak, a representative on behalf of Bangor Civic
Society noted that they were not supportive of the application because:
·
It
did not comply with the policies of the planning authority
·
That it was near a very busy roundabout and that
there were a number of reasons for refusing it
·
That the Joint Local Development Plan referred to
protecting the environment and specifically protecting the trees on the site
·
That the location was unsuitable as it was a very
busy road in Bangor and was a road used by the emergency services
·
Concerns
regarding parking on Sackville Road
·
That there was no parking provision for vehicles
serving the site
·
Although
the applicant noted that the application would create jobs, these jobs could be
created should the enterprise be located on a more suitable site, such as Parc Bryn Cegin
(c)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
applicant’s agent noted the following main points:
·
that the Deiniol
Development company had developed Asda, located nearby, and the proposal at the
time, when the site had been purchased, was for Asda to be larger. However, the development was proceeded on a
smaller scale and since then, the site that was the subject of the application
had stood empty.
·
the purpose of the application was to bring back
activity to the site whilst attempting to develop an attractive gateway to the
city centre with high quality landscaping.
·
that the building itself was on a very small scale and would
allow Starbucks to establish a presence in Bangor, which had been their wish
for some time.
·
that there was no other site and that this was the only
opportunity they had.
·
that the company had strong links with the community, student
communities
in places such as Llandudno
and Aberystwyth, and they had been motivated from
requests from local people
asking them to bring this brand to Bangor that would
reinforce the city centre.
·
although they were aware of the concerns regarding traffic and
the impact on the existing roundabout, it was stated that these concerns were
being largely misused as it
did not intend to attract
individuals to the site, but rather moving vehicles and that the site would be
accessible to students and pedestrians
·
that the company did not intend to reduce the number of trees,
but that it was obvious that the trees in the front were in a very poor
condition and had a restricted lifespan
·
an attempt would be made to create a landscaped area that would
continue for generations to come that would be of a high quality in terms of
the number of trees and the species planted.
(ch) It
was proposed and seconded to refuse the application in accordance with the
officers’ recommendation and the following points were highlighted by
individual members in favour of refusal:
·
over-development
·
a
busy road and the development would worsen the situation
·
concern
regarding the loss of trees and that their loss would be harmful to Bangor
·
concern regarding suitable parking spaces
·
that there was no provision for the loading or
unloading of goods at the site and consequently customers would park on the
road and create traffic jams.
·
Concern about the Welsh language
·
Concern about the safety of students walking around
the road in question
·
Disagree with the applicant's agent in terms of
alternative locations and that there were empty spaces in the High Street for
the development and also Parc Bryn Cegin would be a more suitable location.
Resolved: To refuse the
application for the following reasons:
1.
The proposal has
failed to show compliance with the requirements of policy MAN 1 and PPW in
terms of justifying the need and the location (in terms of the sequential test)
for the development and satisfy the Authority that the development would not be
harmful to the vitality and viability of the town centre.
2.
It was considered
that the proposal was contrary to policy ISA 4 as the proposal would lead to
the loss of valuable green amenity space in an urban area.
3.
It is considered that the proposal is contrary to
the requirements of policies PS19, PCYFF 4, PS 5 and also ISA 4 as there was no
justification for the loss of protected trees on this site and it would have an
unacceptable impact on the visual amenities of the street-scape and the
proposed mitigation measures would not overcome the loss in an acceptable
way.
4.
It is considered
that the proposal is contrary to policy PS19 and AMG 5 as the application has
not shown that there are no other satisfactory alternative choices available
for the development and that it has not shown that the need for the development
outweighs the importance of the site as a biodiversity stepping stone.
5.
It is considered
that the proposal is contrary to the requirements of policies TRA 2, TRA 4 and
MAN 7 as there is no provision on the site for servicing vehicles to park and
it would not be possible for servicing vehicles to enter and exit the site in a
forward gear and this could be detrimental to road safety considering the
proximity of the site to a busy roundabout.
In addition, the drive-thru element did not have sufficient parking
spaces for waiting customers, and this could lead to additional vehicular
movements into and out of the site in order for customers to enter the customer
car park.
Supporting documents: