Change of use or
existing car park into bus depot
LOCAL MEMBER:
Councillor Annwen Daniels
Decision:
To defer in order to conduct further discussions regarding
an alternative site.
Minutes:
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.
Supporting documents: