Agenda item

Development of a new adventure tourism ride by way of a 'Swing' to include the erection of a swing platform structure, ramp and landing structure, associated cables and anchor structures together with associated works.

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Beca Roberts

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To approve subject to the receipt of positive observations from CADW and the following conditions: 

 

1.     5 years  

2.     Comply with the approved plans  

3.     Comply with the Construction Transport Management Plan 

4.     Comply with the Initial Ecological and Habitat Enhancement Assessment

5.     Submit and agree a Heritage Management Plan 

6.     Submit an Environmental Method Statement 

7.     Submit and agree Site Management Plan to include a mechanism to deal with complaints. 

8.     Welsh/bilingual signs 

9.     Cadw Conditions 

 

Note – Natural Resources Wales, Dŵr Cymru. 

 

Development of a new adventure tourism ride by way of a 'Swing' to include the erection of a swing platform structure, ramp and landing structure, associated cables and anchor structures together with associated works. 

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form which referred to comments from Llandygai Community Council along with a letter from the Chair of the Wales Slate Partnership Board. It was noted that a further objection from a member of the public had been received over the weekend, but that it did not raise any new issue.

 

Some of the Committee Members had visited the site on 20-10-25.

 

a)           The Planning Manager highlighted that it was a full application for the creation of an additional activity at the Zip World site at Penrhyn Quarry, Bethesda. The proposal was to establish a new ride in the form of a large swing with 6 seats with the works including the erection of a platform structure, a ramp and landing structure, cables connected to anchor structures.

 

It was explained that the application site included a piece of land within the Penrhyn Quarry area, to the south-west of the existing Zip World site, extending across the quarry lake towards a gallery at a higher level on the south side of the quarry pit. The proposed development would consist of four main elements:

 

·        The lowest anchor point, ramp, landing area and cart;

·        The swing and platform;

·        The highest anchorage point;

·        Connection via two tensioned cables, traversing the quarry between both anchorage points. These would be fixed in place by pairs of upright steel columns on concrete pad footings.

 

The site was partially located within the North West Wales Slate Landscape World Heritage Site along with the Dyffryn Ogwen Landscape of Outstanding Historic Landscape with the Penrhyn Quarry scheduled monuments nearby. It was noted that the starting point of the ride and the main Zip-World centre, including the car park, were located outside the World Heritage site designation.

 

Reference was made to the Policy PS 14 of the Local Development Plan (LDP) which supports proposals to develop a local year-round thriving tourism industry. Policy TWR 1 reflects this by supporting proposals for new visitor attractions or facilities, or to improve and extend the standard of existing facilities. It was highlighted that policy TWR 1 requires proposals to conform with criteria relating to the use of a suitable previously used site, the use of a site closely related to other existing buildings and the development of an activity which is restricted to a specific location. Given the use of the surrounding site as a popular tourist destination, and the post-industrial nature of the location and the economic benefit likely to derive from the development, it was deemed that this development would enhance and extend the range of facilities available for visitors in a way consistent with the principles of these policies.

 

It was reported that the proposal site was located within the catchment area of the quarry's activities which include the existing Zip World attraction with a variety of buildings and structures located around the proposed structure. It was conveyed that any view of the structure itself would be seen within this context with a backdrop of an industrial nature. It was considered that the proposed structure was of a practical and functional design reflecting the industrial nature of the site with the steel columns that would support the wires and equipment resembling some of the quarry's adjacent construction. 

 

A Landscape and Visual Assessment prepared by heritage experts was submitted with the application in which the overall impact on the World Heritage Site from six views was found to be 'negligible to minor harm' and in one case a 'minor beneficial effect'. These conclusions were acknowledged, and it was considered that the proposal would not be prominent in the landscape and would not have a detrimental visual effect locally.

 

Reference was made to a noise assessment that had been submitted as part of the application, and it was reported that the Public Protection Service accepted the conclusions relating to noise arising directly from the machinery associated with the proposal but noted concern about the lack of attention paid to the potential noise of customers using the swing. This was also reiterated as a concern by a local resident. In response, it was noted that this was a very difficult aspect to predict and manage, but that it could be assured, by means of an appropriate condition, that a process was in place to consider any complaints made by members of the public during the operational period and to ensure that specific action was taken to mitigate any problems, if there was evidence of significant harm. It was therefore considered that, in the context of all other activity taking place within the Zip World site and the nearby operational Quarry, the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on local residents in terms of noise.

 

It was noted that there had been considerable discussion between the applicant and his agent and Cadw regarding heritage issues, and that a more recent version of the Heritage Impact Assessment contained mitigation measures which concluded that the beneficial/positive impacts represented by the proposals together with the additional mitigation measures, balanced against the adverse/negative impacts with a net result of an overall neutral impact.

 

It was noted that Cadw's comments on the Heritage Impact Assessment confirmed that their concerns about the impact on the World Heritage Site and the monuments would be reduced provided that all mitigation measures mentioned in the Assessment (which include the removal of existing structures from the site, the provision of purpose-built viewing areas accessible to non-swing participants offering a unique visual experience of the quarry and the Princess May, guided visits for swing participants including commentary, interpretive panels, vegetation management around the Princess May, provision of soft landscaping around the existing sewage treatment system, and a team training programme) would be implemented prior to the ride’s first commercial operation, with the requirement for the expert report on the condition of the Princess May to be completed six months after the ride's first commercial operation. On that basis, the proposal was considered to generally meet the requirements of policies PS 20 and AT 1 in the LDP.

 

It was explained that the planning statement submitted as part of the application included consideration of the Language, and a commitment to support the Welsh Language by ensuring that it was visible as part of the development by installing bilingual signage, offering additional employment opportunities based on 20 full-time equivalent jobs to be met locally. It was noted that there would be a planning condition to ensure the use of bilingual signage, along with a note to promote the use of Welsh for businesses.

 

In the context of biodiversity matters, it was highlighted that the Biodiversity Unit was satisfied with the Ecological Surveys and improvements and therefore that the proposal complied with the requirements of policy PS19 and Planning Policy Wales. It was reiterated that the Transport Unit had no objection to the proposal.

 

The proposal was considered to be acceptable. Officers recommended that the application be approved subject to imposing planning conditions.

 

 

b)           Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following points:

·        That the application was one for an exciting new adventure development for Zip World visitors to experience excitement and an adrenaline rush.

·        The site was adjacent to a World Heritage Site.

·        This was the first development/additional attraction since the establishment of Zip World at Penrhyn Quarry in 2001.

·        That Zip World has been in contact with the Steering Group since 2023 about the proposal and that extensive discussions had taken place. The Steering Group had been able to contribute to the form, look and design of the initiative.

·        Mitigation Measures had been agreed with Cadw, who now supported the application.

·        Zip World made a significant contribution to the local economy – created a number of jobs.

·        That safety on the site was of a high standard.

·        A means of promoting heritage.

 

c)           Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following observations:

·        She did not believe that the committee was in a position to make any decision because the documents submitted were not accurate or up-to-date.

·        Reference was made to the “Economic Impact Assessment", and specifically sections 3.6 and 3.7, highlighting clear references to the ambition to develop an "eBus network," and to the connection between the proposed Swing attraction and the eBus system. These references directly contradicted Zip World's public commitment made at a local community engagement meeting on 17 June 2025, – to eliminate the eBus element following strong local opposition. As a result, the Economic Impact Assessment, as well as the Temporary Travel Plan were based on a version of the plan that no longer existed. Zip World continued to use the eBus network to justify key claims about sustainability, carbon reduction, and the economic benefit of the enterprise and that this therefore undermined the validity of the evidence presented; the costs and carbon figures, and the broader economic assessments all depended on assumptions that were now incorrect.

·        There was a promise of 20 full-time equivalent jobs, but this figure was also linked to the Economic Impact Assessment which covered the eBus network. How many jobs were therefore pledged, given that the eBus network was no longer part of the plan?

·        There were no details as to what type of jobs these would be, or a guarantee that they would be permanent, and given that over 85% of Zip World's current workforce at Penrhyn Quarry and Llechwedd are on zero hours contracts, it was difficult to accept this figure.

·        The Economic Impact Assessment also uses company-wide data to justify a single attraction. Use of the headline figure of £690 million in economic value of the entire Zip World operation across Wales – it was not specific to the Swing and should not be used to support this application.

·        The report did not reflect the proposal under consideration. It was incomplete, inconsistent, and potentially misleading.

·        The committee was urged to defer a decision until accurate and up-to-date documents were submitted - including an Economic Impact Assessment and a revised Transport Plan that accurately described the current plan. Upon receipt of this, Committee members could assess the impacts appropriately and fairly.

·        It was suggested that it would be sensible for the committee, during a period of deferment, to look at Section 106 contributions – and how they could apply to major developments of this kind. If a project such as onshore wind of a similar financial scale was expected to make a community contribution, then it would be reasonable to ask why this type of development should be treated differently.

·        That the social benefit of Zip World was a weak claim – there was no stability, and the money did not stay within the local economy.

 

d)           In response to the comments, the Planning Manager noted that written confirmation had been received stating that the eBus no longer formed part of the application and the rest of the information submitted was accurate.

 

dd)           The application was proposed and seconded

 

An amendment was proposed and seconded to defer so that further discussions could take place with the agent and more up-to-date and current information could be presented to the Committee.

 

A vote was taken on the proposal to defer.

The proposal fell.

 

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

·        That there was a need to clear and tidy up around the historic 'Princess May' Water Tank before the swing was operational

·        If the eBus no longer formed part of the application, was it possible to contribute to local buses and/or the local community to improve transport provision?

·        That the application complied with local and national policies.

·        That the ride was a natural addition to the site which was currently wasteland.

·        It would offer employment locally.

·        This was a 6-seater swing – it was not excessive – it was reasonably small for such a large site.

·        That Zip World brings people to Wales – an area dependent on tourism.

·        The company had high safety standards.

 

·        That the figures were incorrect – it would be unreasonable to allow this without the correct figures.

·        Zip World was an extractive company – they are not a local company.

·        As the eBus did not form part of the application, local transport misses out.

·        Insufficient parking spaces for the extra visitors.

·        That more information was needed - incorrect information had been submitted and therefore the committee was urged to defer the matter.

 

RESOLVED:⁠ To approve subject to the receipt of positive observations from CADW and to the following conditions: 

 

1.     5 years  

2.     Comply with the approved plans  

3.     Comply with the Construction Transport Management Plan 

4.     Comply with the Initial Ecological and Habitat Enhancement Assessment

5.     Submit and agree a Heritage Management Plan 

6.     Submit an Environmental Method Statement 

7.     Submit and agree a Site Management Plan to include a mechanism to deal with complaints. 

8.     Welsh/bilingual signs 

9.     Cadw Conditions 

 

Note – Natural Resources Wales, Dŵr Cymru.