Retrospective application to retain pontoon within the dock.
Local Member: Councillor Sian Gwenllian
Minutes:
Retrospective
application to retain a pontoon within the quay.
(a)
The Development
Control Manager expanded on the application’s background and stated that this
was a full application to retain a pontoon within the quay (the application was
deferred at the Committee on 19.10.15 due to the procedure for speaking at the
committee). It was added that the pontoon was situated on the
northern wall and measured 30m long and 2m wide and was attached to the harbour
wall in three locations with an iron bracket allowing the pontoon to rise with
the tide. It was
added that the harbour wall was a grade II listed structure. It was
noted that the new pontoon suited the area in terms of the design and
appearance and was in a working marina. There were no
implications on the appearance or character of the listed structure or on the
area’s amenities or nearby residents, and the submitted engineering report
stated that the wall was strong enough to be able to support this pontoon. It was
therefore considered that the proposal was acceptable and in accordance with
policies B2, B3, B22, B23, B24 and B25 of the GUDP.
(b)
Taking advantage
of the right to speak, an objector to the application made the following
points-:
·
That the harbour
was historical
·
Pontoons had been
constructed in 2001 without planning permission
·
The sea wall had
been demolished in 2008 with damage to the gardens of nearby residents. The
residents had split the repair costs.
·
The pontoon was
constructed in March 2015 – again without permission.
·
Concern as this
was a retrospective application, that another section of the wall might fall
and nearby residents would prosecute the Council for damage.
(c)
Taking advantage
of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following points:-
·
That the dock
area in Felinheli was successful
·
The dock basin
had been designed for heavy industrial work and commercial ships
·
The pontoon may
have had an impact on the fall of the wall
·
The dock was of
benefit to the local economy and the community
·
The wall in
question was in a good condition without any sign of stress
·
The enforcement
control plan would be in place
·
No evidence to
refuse the application.
(ch) The following main points were made by a member acting
on behalf of the local member (who was not a member of this Planning Committee)
who objected to the application:
·
The Member had
met with nearby residents and they were concerned that a similar incident to
that of 2008 might occur – namely that the pontoon would become loose from the
wall and cause damage that was costly to residents.
·
The pontoon in
question was closer to the houses and therefore there was more concern
·
There was a
serious crack in the wall and the wall was quite unstable
·
He disagreed with
the engineering report submitted with the application which stated that
installing a pontoon was unlikely to have a detrimental impact in terms of the
engineering structure.
·
A more
comprehensive engineering report was required in order to alleviate the
concerns of residents.
·
If the
application was approved then a clear condition should be imposed for a
detailed engineering survey.
In response to the
observations noted, that it was necessary to empathise with local residents as
a result of the damage to the wall in the past. However, the need to consider the application in its
context was highlighted. Based on the evidence to hand, the
pontoon was not considered to have a detrimental impact on the wall’s integrity
It was proposed and
seconded to approve the application in accordance with the recommendation.
(d) During the
discussion, the following main observations were made:
·
The observations
of the local member highlighted the concerns.
·
If the wall was
to fall, who would be responsible for its renovation? Can it
be shown here that the Council was defective in its responsibilities?
·
That the evidence
was not sufficient - proposed the need for a more comprehensive, technical and
detailed report to avoid prosecution.
·
The mechanical
evidence was not sufficient
(dd) An amendment was proposed and seconded to defer the
determination on the grounds that the engineering evidence submitted with the
application was insufficient to justify approving the application.
In response, the Senior
Solicitor noted that the amendment was appropriate as seeking information was
fitting and acceptable. He
added that if any damage occurred to the wall then this would be a civil matter
outside the remit of the Planning Committee.
The Senior Planning
Service Manager stated that it would be appropriate to ask for further
engineering information and to get the views of the Building Control Unit on
the contents in order to receive confirmation if the report submitted was
appropriate and sufficient.
RESOLVED
To defer the decision and notify the applicant that an
update of the structural/engineering assessment needed to be submitted in order
to refer to the crack in the wall. Once this would be received it would be
necessary to consult with the Building Control Unit to receive confirmation if
the additional structural report / information is
sufficient and acceptable.
Supporting documents: