Agenda item

Re-submission: Chane of use of land to create storage/sales yard associated with the existing commercial premises, together with the erection of security fence, install hard standing area and alterations to the agricultural access to create vehicular access to the yard .  

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor John Pughe

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To defer in order to conduct a site visit

 

Resubmission: Change the use of land to create storage/sales yard associated with the existing commercial premises, together with the erection of security fence, install hard standing area and alterations to the agricultural access to create vehicular access to the yard

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form that referred to amended plans that had been submitted.

 

a)    The Development Control Team Leader highlighted that this was a full application (and not a householder application as stated on the front of the report) for the change of land use to create a storage/sales yard on land adjacent to Idris Villas, Tywyn that would be linked to the existing commercial premises located on the High Street. The proposal would include erecting a security fence, installing a hard standing area and alterations to the existing agricultural access to create a suitable vehicular access.

 

It was reported that the application site was agricultural land located outside but adjoining the Tywyn development boundary and was therefore considered as a site in the countryside. Policy PCYFF 1 of the LDP stated that outside development boundaries, proposals would be refused unless they were in accordance with specific policies in the Plan or national planning policies or that the proposal showed that its location in the countryside was essential.

 

It was proposed to establish an external retail yard to the rear of a former furniture store in order to further expand the business. Policy MAN 6 stated that proposals to develop small-scale shops or extensions to existing shops outside development boundaries would be approved if they complied with six relevant criteria. Nevertheless it was highlighted that the proposal did not comply with three of those criteria:

·           The proposal did not comply technically with criterion 1 as the proposal did not involve a business that already existed on the site.

·           The proposal to relocate the business and use a commercial building that was currently empty would be favoured; however, the need to extend the use to greenfield land in the countryside was a concern.

·           Extending industrial retail use to the countryside would have a detrimental impact visually and on the amenities of neighbouring adjacent residents, and this was discussed further in the report's amenities section.

 

In terms of flooding issues, it was highlighted that most of the application site was within a C1 flooding zone as indicated in Welsh Government's Flood Risk Maps. Criterion 4 of Strategic Policy PS 6 stated that new developments should be located away from areas where there was a flood risk, unless it could be shown clearly that no risk existed or that it was possible to control the risk. The acceptability of the proposal must be assessed under national policy considerations, Technical Advice Note (TAN) 15 Development and Flood Risk in this case.

 

A Flood Consequence Assessment (FCA) was submitted as information on the application and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) were consulted. It appeared that the Flood Consequences Assessment had considered the impact of the development on flooding risks and to consider the flooding paths and floodplain storage. It was noted that the assessment indicated that there were risks of tidal flooding on the development site however, it indicated that the risks and the consequences could be managed to an acceptable level.

 

Although NRW had concerns regarding the application, it was considered that they could be overcome should specific documents be conditioned. Despite the satisfaction of NRW regarding the plans, the matter should be considered in terms of the relevant requirements of paragraph 6.2 TAN 15 which clearly stated, "The only time where other new developments should be permitted in C1 and C2 zones is when the planning authority decides that there is justification to locate them there." Put simply, as explained in the refusal decision of the previous application C22/1050/09/LL and in our response to the Pre-application Enquiry for the proposal, the development did not meet with the specific justification tests of the TAN and was therefore contrary to policy PCYFF 1, a number of criteria in policy MAN 6, Strategic Policy 6 and the justification tests of Technical Advice Note (TAN) 15: Development and Flood Risk.

 

In the context of visual amenities, it was noted that the proposal involved changing the use of a part of an agricultural field to a storage/sales yard which would involve erecting a surrounding security fence, laying an area of hard standing and creating a new vehicular access. Concern was noted that the development would introduce a hard industrial element in a prominent and open location in the town. There had been changes to the plans since the original planning application that had been refused, therefore, the same concerns were relevant in relation to the visual impact.

 

In the context of residential amenities, it was highlighted that the field in question was located in a central location within the town with a combination of shops and residential housing in the nearby vicinity. The proposal would introduce a use of an industrial nature to the field, with heavy retail / storage use and HGV vehicles coming and going on a daily basis and the potential to cause noise disturbance.    It was considered that there were grounds to the neighbour's concern on the original application, i.e. that the nature of the activity could cause noise disturbance and the busy nature of the site to the neighbours opposite. Given the peaceful, rural nature of the site at present, it was considered that the change of use and the new associated entrance could cause a nuisance and have a significant adverse impact on nearby residents. 

 

In terms of transport and access matters it was noted that the site was served by a class 3 county road and it was proposed to create a new vehicular access to the development. Detailed plans of the access and 'swept path' routes for vehicles and heavy vehicles into the site had been submitted. The Transportation Unit had submitted its observations on the proposal which noted the need to obtain swept path details of the vehicles exiting the site to establish to what extent the lorries would occupy the adjacent road in a location that was close to the junction. Based on the observations of the Transportation Unit, it could not be guaranteed that the proposed access would be suitable to ensure the safe operation of the highway. The proposal, therefore, is contrary to policy TRA 4 and criterion 6 of MAN 6 of the LDP and TAN 18: Transportation.

 

It was considered that the development remained unacceptable based on the concerns regarding flooding, impact on the area's visual amenities and the amenities of nearby residents and roads. There had been no change to plans or application details since the previous refusal  under application C22/1050/09/LL and it was therefore recommended to refuse the application.

 

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

·         He supported the application

·         He knew the area well

·         A number of shops were closing - the proposal would mitigate the problems

·         An empty premises on the High Street was suitable for the use

·         It was a low-level development

·         It was unlikely the site would flood - sea wall, embankment and flood defences in place and in all his years of living in the area he had not witnessed this area suffer the impact of flooding.

·         NRW noted that flooding concerns could be overcome if the Flood Consequence Assessment was included in the conditions

·         The access would be improved

·         A condition could be imposed for delivery times

·         The site was large enough for lorries to manoeuvre - good visibility

·         The site was fit for purpose

·         The business was established in the area - the company was an asset for the town - did not want to lose it

·         Good opportunity to use empty property in the town

·         The company was an asset to the town - need to regenerate the town

 

c)    It was proposed and seconded to undertake a site visit.

 

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

·        The report was detailed, however it did not reflect the problem

·        That the development was essential for Tywyn - jobs needed

·        Need to promote local businesses

·        The Community Council had discussed the application although the observations had not been included in the report

 

 

RESOLVED: To defer in order to conduct a site visit