Agenda item

Retrospective application to retain a pontoon within the quay.

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Gareth Wyn Griffith

Link to relevant background documents

Retrospective application to retain a pontoon within the quay.   

(a) The Development Control Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that it was a retrospective application to retain a pontoon within the quay that was located on the northern wall of the harbour and linked to three locations which would allow the pontoon to be raised with the tide. It was noted that the site was part of the existing marina and the harbour wall was a Grade II listed structure. 

         Attention was drawn to the objections and the engineering report that stated that the installation of the pontoon was unlikely to have any detrimental effect from a harbour structural engineering standpoint.

Following the committee's resolution in September 2016, the objectors were given an opportunity to provide and submit their own engineering report and it did not appear from their report that the wall was in a poor state of repair nor was it under any threat from the pontoon.  In the report's conclusion it was suggested that a condition be imposed to monitor the wall regularly, as a fair mitigation measure. In addition, the opinion of Gwynedd Consultancy on the report was received and it was confirmed that it had been undertaken by a recognised company and the recommendations were fair. It was not considered that the contents of the new report by the objectors had submitted any new evidence and therefore the recommendation had not changed from the previous recommendations.

It was explained that the application was now subject of an appeal for a lack of decision and in order to enable officers to deal with the appeal the Committee was requested to confirm its stance on the application and authorise the officers to submit the appeal case on behalf of the Council.  It was recommended that the Committee delegate powers to officers to deal with the appeal for a lack of decision and to confirm that the Council's view would be to recommend approval of the application with a condition and a note to regularly monitor the condition of the wall. 

(b) On behalf of the area's residents, the Local Member (not a member of this Planning Committee) objected to the application and noted the following main points:

·         The importance that Committee members were aware of all the contents of the engineering report  

·         That several people opposed the application

·         The wall was over 100 years old and its condition was unknown

·         Although various reports had been submitted it was felt that no full survey of the wall had been undertaken

·         The area's residents did not object to all the pontoons, however, they objected to this type that was attached with brackets to the wall 

·         An e-mail had been received from the applicant's agent stating that he was willing to remove the pontoon during winter from 1 November to 1 March and in addition he was prepared to conduct an annual visual inspection 

·         It should be ensured that the condition stated regular monitoring

·         There was concern regarding public safety if there were any problems with the pontoon

(c)      In response, the Senior Planning Service Manager noted the concerns of the member and local residents, however, he drew attention to the fact that the application was in the hands of the Planning Inspectorate.  The Committee was reminded that the application had been submitted for over 12 months and had been deferred several times to receive reports.   Stemming from all the reports, it was stated that there was nothing to state that the development would exacerbate the situation in terms of the structural credibility of the harbour wall. It was stressed to the Committee that the application should be dealt with based on the contents of the evidence before them.   

  (ch)   The planning officers’ recommendation was proposed and seconded. 

(d)     During the ensuing discussion, the following concerns were highlighted: 

·         That any new development should be sustainable and had to work, however, in this case the lifespan of the wall was unknown   

·         It was felt that the Committee was on shaky ground with this application bearing in mind the contents of the ARUP report

·         Several members noted that they were not convinced that the development would be sustainable

·         There was concern regarding public safety

  (dd)  In response to the concerns highlighted above, the Senior Planning Service Manager         explained that the reports stated that it was unlikely that there would be any additional    impact on the wall structure as a result of the pontoon. It was further noted that    confirmation had been received that the applicant would remove the pontoon over the            winter months.

(a)     Whilst understanding the concerns, the Senior Solicitor explained that civil responsibilities             outside the planning system fell on landowners and that the Committee took decisions on          planning based on the evidence submitted.  Although the reports were superficial,    evidence before them stated that there was currently no impact to be seen and it was        added that it was not possible to predict what may occur in years to come.  

Resolved:          To delegate powers to officers to deal with the appeal for a lack of decision and to confirm that the Council's view would be to recommend approval of the application in accordance with the plans submitted and a note to regularly monitor the condition of the wall.