Agenda item

Change of use or existing car park into bus depot

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Annwen Daniels

Link to relevant background documents

To defer in order to conduct further discussions regarding an alternative site.

Change the use of the existing car park into a bus depot

a)      The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that it was an application to create a new depot to charge electric buses by laying a bitumen surface on the site. It was highlighted that it was a brownfield site on the periphery, but within, the development boundary of Blaenau Ffestiniog Urban Service Centre, which stood near the class 3 county road leading from the A470 towards the village of Tanygrisiau.  The site is currently used as an informal car park where community recycling facilities are located, along with a communication equipment pole.   It was reiterated that the eastern part of the site extended into the site of the former playing field earmarked for housing in the Joint Local Development Plan (T23 site), and that the majority of the site was within a C2 Flood Zone. F

                        The development would include:  

·         Facilities to charge 6 public transport vehicles

·         Six staff car parking spaces

·         Erecting a building for staff - this would be a building measuring 12m x 4m in floor area and 3.6m high with timber cladding and a flat roof. 

·         Extending the level surface on the site by excavating into the slope on the eastern side of the site and erect a 1.5m high retaining wall.

·         Erecting a 2m high fence around the site and install CCTV and security lights

·         Land drainage work

It was reported that the principle of the development, visual amenity matters and biodiversity matters were acceptable. Natural Resources Wales confirmed that a Flood Consequence Assessment needed to be prepared for the development and a FCA was submitted during the process of considering the application. This assessment concluded that the development would not increase the risk of flooding to the site itself or to nearby land. Subject to the comments of Natural Resources Wales, it was not anticipated that the development was likely to increase the flood risk on the site. It was considered that the proposal was acceptable under policy PS6 of the LDP and TAN 15.

b)            Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following points:

·           No objection to the enterprise, but the location of the proposal raised concern

·           The site was an 'unofficial' car park often used for the school, chapel, studio and visitors.

·           That there had been a lack of pre-application consultation regarding the location - one meeting had been held where other suitable sites had been proposed for the venture (one Council-owned site in a location that would involve less adaptation work)

·           That nothing was being offered 'to replace' the informal community car park

·           That the concept of electric buses was to be welcomed

c)             It was proposed and seconded to defer the decision so that an alternative suitable location could be considered and / or to acknowledge the parking problems

ch)       During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by Members:

·         That the local member had identified an alternative and better location - the possibilities needed to be considered

·         That the safety of school children needed to be considered - unofficial  / official parking or not

·         Insufficient consultation - a suitable site had been highlighted - had discussions been held to consider this?

·         The community was losing a suitable place to park - was this grounds for refusal?

d)            In response to the comments, the Monitoring Officer noted that considering another alternative site was not a reason to refuse, noting that there was a need to consider the proposal as submitted on its own merits. He reiterated that the current car park was only being used informally and so the landowner could bring the site's use to an end at any time. The Assistant Head reiterated that no objection had been received from the Transportation Unit and that the proposal was an important plan that would contribute towards ensuring sustainable transport. It was not possible to insist that the applicant sought another site.

In response to the member's comment regarding the lack of consultation, the Planning Manager highlighted that it was a matter of lack of consultation regarding the pre-application, and not any shortcoming in relation to the Planning Service.

RESOLVED:

To defer in order to conduct further discussions regarding an alternative site.