Substantial demolition of the existing Electric Mountain Visitor Centre
(bar the existing electrcity sub-station), change of use of the site to form a
car park, replacement lighting, provision of electric vehicle charging points
and associated landscaping.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Kim Jones
Link
to relevant background documents
Decision:
DECISION: To defer until September
2022 to enable a further opportunity to discuss alternative uses for the
building
Minutes:
Substantial
demolition of the existing Electric Mountain Visitor Centre (bar the existing
electricity sub-station), change of use of the site to form a car park,
replacement lighting, provision of electric vehicle charging points and
associated landscaping.
Attention
was drawn to the late observations form noting that the Community Council
confirmed that there had been lengthy consultation prior to the application's
submission and the Community Council had no objection to the demolition of the
building as the company do not offer another option, however, there was some
discontent amongst members that a car park would then be created together with
a small site for events
a)
The Development Control Officer highlighted that this was a full
application to demolish the structure of the Electric Mountain Visitor Centre
(separate to the electricity sub-station) to provide a new car park, install lighting,
charging points for vehicles and associated landscaping on a site that is
located between the village and Llyn Padarn. The application was split into
several different elements, which included:-
·
Demolish 2,932m2 of the floor surface area of the existing
building, apart from 22m2 of the surface area of the electricity sub-station.
·
Provide a car park for the public that would add 110 additional
parking spaces to the existing adjacent car park, including 5 disabled spaces.
·
Provision of 12 rapid AC Charging points for vehicles together
with one rapid DC charging point for vehicles.
·
Access to the extended car park by using the existing access from
the adjacent class I county road (A4086).
·
Install nine 6m high columns to light the car park, of a design
that would reduce any light pollution on the land surrounding the application
site.
·
Soft landscaping scheme to include planting trees, shrubs and
meadow wildflowers.
It was
suggested that the main consideration of this application, was whether the proposal
would lead to the loss of a community resource.
It was noted that Policy ISA 2 of the LDP states that the Council would
resist the loss or change of use of an existing community facility by complying
with a least one of the policy's criteria, in the case of a commercially
operated facility (as in this case). There is evidence:
·
That the current use has
ceased to be financially viable - the
applicant had stated that the visitor centre is under-used and is too large for
the the facilities accommodated inside and the condition of the construction
already creates an eyesore within the local area.
·
It could not reasonably be
expected to become financially viable - based on
the information submitted by the applicant regarding the viability of the
visitor centre, it cannot be reasonably expected that the use(s) made
previously of the building would become financially viable in the near future
or the long-term and it would not make economic sense to continue to use the
building as a community resource and visitor centre.
·
That no other suitable
community use could be established - given
the fact that the structure, in its
curent condition,is unsustainable, as well as the size of the floor area/space
within the structure itself, it is not believed that the building could be used
for the benefit of the community in a way that is financially viable
·
That there is evidence of
genuine attempts to market the facility, which had been unsuccessful - the applicant does not intend to dispose of the site by selling it,
but rather to safeguard it and develop it for a suitable use now and for the
future. The applicant is of the opinion that the most suitable use for it in
the short/medium term is as a car park, which in itself is an alternative community
facility. Within this context, the proposal would involve the loss of one type
of community resource to be replaced with another alternative community
resource.
It was added that there was a possibility for the applicant to submit a
notice to the Council, in accordance with Part 31 of the Town and Country
Planning Order (Permitted General Development) to demolish the building. As the applicant had chosen to submit a
planning application to change the use of the site, this meant that there would
be better control over the proposal by the Council.
It was
noted that other relevant considerations such as visual, residential,
biodiversity and road safety matters were acceptable. It was not considered that the proposal was
contrary to local or national policies and there was no material planning
matter that outweighed policy considerations.
As a result, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable subject
to the inclusion of conditions.
b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the
following observations:
·
The building had been built in the early 80's and
was designed and proposed as a Sports Hall for the community. There was an
objection to this from local residents and therefore a museum and tourist
information centre were created.
·
The building was not suitable as a Centre - high
business rates and running costs
·
As a result of the Foot and Mouth Disease in 2003,
the business started to lose money and since then it had been difficult to
recover losses
·
Consideration was given to creating a new centre,
however, the outbreak of the Covid pandemic in 2020 meant that no plan was
drafted.
·
By now the main valves in the quarry needed to be
renewed and as a result it was not possible to conduct visits to the quarry and
therefore there was no use for the Visitors' Centre.
·
Rather than seeing the building deteriorating, it
was proposed to demolish and create a car park in response to the demand for
parking spaces in the village.
c)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local
Member made the following points:
·
That
she objected the application
·
The
fact that the building was empty, along with the feeble attempt made to try and
seek an alternative use for the building, was disappointing.
·
Creating
a car park was not a response to the local need - creating space for 110 cars
would create a negative impression without any benefit or advantage to the
community. It would also compete
directly with a nearby car park that was a social enterprise
·
Discussions were afoot and new ideas had been
presented - more time was needed to discuss with an events company 'Always Aim
High' and the Mountain Rescue Team
·
The
original building was a gift to the community. By now, it was the financial
reasons of benefit to the company that were being submitted.
·
It was not too late to save the building
·
There was a request to defer the decision to hold
further discussions.
d) It was proposed and seconded to defer the decision in accordance with
the request of the Local Member
In response to the
proposal, the Head of Legal Services noted that a reason for refusal was
required based on planning matters and if it was to be deferred to re-commence
discussions then a timetable had to be set.
It was also added that a possible appeal by the applicant regarding the
lack of a decision had to be considered and there was nothing to prevent the
applicant from issuing a notice and to demolish the building.
dd) It was proposed and seconded to defer
determination until September 2022 to allow a further opportunity for the
community to discuss alternative uses for the building with the applicant.
e) During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by
members:
·
The reasons for the demolition of the building
were weak - the building's condition was not poor.
·
Initially the building was meant as a
gift to the community - this had to be adhered to and enable it to be a
community resource.
·
No new parking was required -
especially if there was a car park nearby run by the community.
·
A number of ideas had been proposed by
the community
·
A request for First Hydro / Engie to
take notice of the need for a community resource
·
Should the application be refused
bearing in mind that there was no need for a car park?
In response to a question regarding the need for planning permission to
demolish the building, the Assistant Head noted that no permission was required
for demolition, however, if the site was to be adapted into a car park then
planning permission was required.
RESOLVED: To
defer until September 2022 to enable a further opportunity to discuss
alternative uses for the building
Supporting documents: