Agenda item
Change of use of agricultural building into a boat engine mechanic workshop (Use Class B1)
LOCAL MEMBER:
COUNCILLOR DAFYDD MEURIG
Link
to relevant background documents
Minutes:
Change of use of
agricultural building into a mechanic workshop for repairing boat engines (Use
Class B1)
Attention was
drawn to the late observations form that had been received.
The members had
visited the site.
a)
The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of
the application, and noted that it was an application for converting an
existing agricultural building into a workshop for repairing boat engines. It was noted that this was a retrospective
application as the use of the building had already commenced.
It was explained that the proposal involved using the
building mainly to repair and service boat engines, together with storing
maritime equipment for on-line sales mainly. It was noted that the business
employed nine full-time members of staff with the aim of serving up to five
customers a day (who would attend the site via appointment only). There would
be five parking spaces for customers on the site, five spaces allocated for
staff and seven separate spaces for general parking. There would also be an
allocated space for storing up to four boats on the site. The Planning
Statement submitted stated that up to five goods/boats deliveries would be
expected to the site every week during the summer, with fewer in the winter.
The site was located near the buildings of the former Tal y Bont Uchaf
farm, which comprised a substantial house, annexe and outbuildings and was a
(Grade II) listed building. Access from the public road was along a private
track with approximately 120m of this being a public footpath. The building was
in a rural area approximately 1.2km to the east of the development boundary of
the village of Llandygai.
A decision on this application was deferred at the
Planning Committee on 23/09/19 so as to allow a site visit to be arranged and in
order to undertake further assessment of the impact on the amenities of the
local area from traffic using the site.
The Transportation Unit had no objection to the
proposal and had stated that they did not believe that the development would have
a detrimental impact on any road. However, it was noted that considerable
objection had come from the local community, claiming that the increase that
had already occurred with traffic was already harming road safety and local
amenities. (This was the basis for conducting a site visit).
In considering the previous use of the building for
agricultural purposes, it was noted that there was nothing to prevent large
vehicles/machinery from coming and going to the site for that purpose. In
addition, when considering the confined nature of the site, it was not believed
that there was sufficient space to extend the business beyond its current
boundaries and therefore the size of the site in itself would limit the amount
of traffic.
Having weighed up
the application and the revised plans against the requirements of the relevant
policies, as well as considering all the observations and objections received
during the consultation period, it was considered that the proposal was
acceptable for approval with relevant conditions and that the development would
not lead to unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenities or those of the wider
area.
b)
Taking
advantage of the right to speak, an objector to the application made the
following main points. He noted that he was the Chair of a Community Council,
that he represented the residents on the road leading to the site entrance, and
was one of those residents who had expressed concerns. He added that he
supported the comments of the Local Member submitted on 23.9.19.
·
This
was a retrospective application, therefore the residents knew what the
application's impacts were on the amenities of local residents
·
He
objected to the application, based on the adverse and significant impact on the
surrounding area's residential amenities due to traffic movements (Planning
Policy PCYFF2)
·
There
had been a significant increase in traffic - he did not acknowledge the
transport log that had been submitted, as it did not accord with the residents'
experiences
·
Residents
had had to change their walking patterns
·
He
congratulated the company on their success. Nevertheless, he drew attention to
the planning statement where it was highlighted that it was intended for the
business to continue to grow, hopefully at a nearby industrial estate.
·
The
application should be refused based on the adverse effect on the safety of the
users of Lôn y Gatws. He referred to Policy TRA 4 which noted that applications
should be refused on the basis of causing unacceptable harm to the safe and
efficient operation of the highway. There were four young residents living
here; use of prams, and it also formed part of the no. 5 national cycle route.
·
He
accepted that the company could not control drivers' choices as to which road
they used to transport goods.
·
The
application was contrary to a key policy in the interest of rural areas CYF6
'encourage small-scale applications that are suited to a rural area'
·
He
disagreed with the attempt to compare traffic associated with the business with
agricultural traffic
·
Farmers
knew the area and were more sensitive to the needs of local residents
c) It was proposed and
seconded to permit the application in accordance with the recommendation
ch) During the ensuing
discussion, members made the following main observations:
·
The business employed 9
people, the site was orderly, no noise concerns
·
Concerns regarding the access
·
Users could be encouraged to use an alternative route
from another direction to reach the site, which had passing places and less
impact on residents
·
A suggestion to install signs e.g. no access (to the
right) when exiting the site
·
The safety of pedestrians and cyclists must be
considered
·
Although supportive of
small industries in the countryside, local concerns must also be listened to.
If there were concerns about safety and disturbance, we would need to take
notice of strong objections
·
It was difficult to differentiate between business
traffic and farm traffic in respect of safety.
d)
An amendment was proposed to the original proposal, to
defer the decision so as to have an opportunity to hold a further discussion
with the applicant to try to alleviate the concerns so that there would be no
inconvenience to the local residents.
dd) In response to the
observations, the Senior Development Control Engineer noted that there were two
roads leading to the site which therefore made it difficult for the
Transportation Unit to object to the application.
In response to the
observations, the Assistant Head of Environment Department noted that the
impact on residents' amenities should be measured against the economic benefit.
It was reiterated that it would be difficult to control the direction of
traffic to the business without restricting the network for everyone. Attention
was drawn to the additional observations where it was highlighted that the
applicant was trying to encourage customers and distribution firms to use the
Ponc y Lon access. It was noted that it would be possible to consider
installing signs under a traffic regulations arrangement, and to raise awareness
and encourage users to use the alternative route, but it would be difficult to
enforce one particular route.
In response to a
question regarding the number of accidents / complaints on the road, the
Planning Manager noted that information about accidents had not been submitted,
but the Enforcement Unit had received complaints.
In response to the
amendment, the Senior Solicitor noted that clearly, this entailed voluntary
actions for the applicant to consider taking rather than matters that would be
enforced through enforcement or conditions.
In response to a
question regarding binding the use to the operator in order to alleviate
concerns in future should the industrial use change, the Planning Manager
highlighted that the applicant now owned the house therefore it would be
possible to impose a condition so that this situation remained.
The Assistant Head
of Environment Department noted that thorough consideration had been given to
the concerns and he suggested that there was little to be gained from any
further discussions. He reiterated that a condition could be imposed which
would bind the use to the operator, and that delegated rights could be used to
discuss a voluntary plan with the transport officer in attendance.
e)
A vote was taken on the amendment - the amendment fell
f)
It was proposed and seconded to approve the
application with a condition to bind the use to the operator.
RESOLVED to approve the
application subject to the following conditions:
·
Five years
·
Development to comply with the approved plans
·
Restrict the use to Class Use B1 (light industry) only
·
Shall not be open to the public or for receiving
deliveries outside the hours of 08:00 - 16:30 (Monday to Friday only)
·
Natural Resources Wales condition(s) as required
·
The business use shall be bound to the property known
as Tal y Bont Uchaf
Supporting documents:
- Application No. C19.0556.21.LL Fferm Talybont Uchaf, Tal y Bont, Bangor, item 6. PDF 122 KB
- Plans, item 6. PDF 376 KB