Retention of hard standing area and proposed bike stand.
Local Members:
Councillors Mair E. Rowlands a June E.
Marshall
Minutes:
Full application
to retain a hard standing and proposed bike stand.
(a) The
Senior Development Control Officer expanded on the background of the
application, noting that the application in question was part retrospective
with the intention of retaining a slate waste hard standing and installing
eight bollards along the north easterly side of the area along with a bike
stand that formed part of the Bangor University campus.
It was noted that the area had
recently been used as an informal parking area.
A previous planning application to
improve the centre had been approved and during the construction phase, a hard
standing had been established on an area of green land to site containers on
it. Following the completion of this work the containers had been moved,
however, the hard standing, which was the subject of this application along
with the proposed bike stand, remained.
Reference was made to the relevant
strategic policies and it was considered that the application was acceptable in
principle.
In terms of visual amenities, it was
considered that the development was acceptable and that it did not have an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the form and character of the nearby
townscape or the historic environment.
It was noted that nearby residents
had raised concerns that the land would be used for parking vehicles. A letter
had been received from the university stating that there was no intention to
use the hard standing as a car park and the bollards would be installed to prevent
access for this purpose. However, the
University had noted that it was intended to use it for outdoor
“activity", namely events held by students on open days. In order to
resolve the residents’ concerns, it was considered that conditions should be
included with any permission to prevent the hard standing from being used as a
car park or for the University's events, occasions or activities. Should such conditions be included, they
would overcome any planning objections to the application and consequently the
development would be acceptable and would comply with the relevant policy. The
officers’ recommendation was to approve the application subject to the
conditions outlined in the report.
(b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, a representative of the resident of number 26 Ffriddoedd Road noted the following main points:-
·
That the land had
previously been undeveloped and the University’s agent was mistaken in
referring to it in policy terms as previously developed land.
·
The policy presumed
that it would be returned to its status as undeveloped land
and there
were suspicions that the University was gaining permission for development by
encroaching a little at a time.
·
In policy terms, the main justification provided
was to park bikes and it was believed that the University's agent had suggested
a bike stand for that exact purpose and without justification the policy did
not support this application
·
That the bike stand was small compared with the
slate waste area and that it was near the sports hall and it could be provided
without a hard standing or slate waste area
·
That there were plenty of bike storage areas
already, which were empty and if any additional places were required, the best
place to install them would be at the main entrance to the Sports Hall and not
the proposed site which was next to the building
·
If the University had wanted more room for bikes
it could have included them when redeveloping this site recently.
·
That the garden of Number 26 Ffriddoedd
Road was on two levels, one under the University’s land, and the other lower
down
·
The resident of Number 26 and neighbours would
be affected by constant noise and loss of privacy should the application be
approved
·
Should the bike stand be sited there, it would
encourage people to convene next to number 26’s garden
·
The garden of number 26 had been used in the
past as a short cut to the bus stop adjacent to number 26
·
In the past, people had been seen throwing slate
waste into the garden
·
The University noted that it was an opportunity
to create a site that had not been used previously that had a more beneficial
use such as outdoor activities that had taken place and that it had been used
to fold tarpaulin in addition to a boot camp class and the noise had been
terrible and that it would increase.
·
Despite the fact that the University’s Project
Officer had noted on 14 December that it would prevent access for car parking,
vehicles had been parking there regularly on the site with very recent evidence
from 16 April
·
There had been no problems with parking vehicles
when the area was open green land and the simplest and most environmentally
friendly solution for the University would be to return the area back to green
land
·
Should the application be approved, it would be
an opportunity to further develop the site in future
(c) The
Local Member (a member of this Planning Committee) noted the following main
points:
·
The land in question was green land and acted as
a buffer between the Brailsford Sports Centre and the
residential property
·
The university
recently undertook work and had used the land to store containers on the
condition that the land would be restored as green land as soon as possible
after the completion of the work
·
The land had not
been restored to its original condition, and it had been used as an
unauthorised car park for vehicles and buses
·
Following receiving
complaints the land was no longer used as a car park and the University
submitted the planning application
·
The report stated
that this land was previously developed land and that its redevelopment was
approved under strategic policy 6 however it was noted that there was an
exception to the policy that if the land was used as a buffer, it should not be
developed.
·
The aim of Strategic
Policy 6 was to protect amenities and green land – to ensure that new land was
not developed and the need to redevelop land that had already been developed in
the past
·
It was also
emphasised that the area surrounded by slate waste under permitted development
rights had to be restored to its original state once the temporary use had come
to an end and therefore the university should re-seed this area
·
The conditions to
retain the hedges, install bollards and prohibit parking were welcomed
·
If these conditions
were to be imposed, why should the area be a slate area, should it not be
restored to its original state?
·
The committee was
asked to ensure that the University restored the green land
(ch) Proposed and seconded to refuse the application for the following
reasons:
·
That the green land had not been restored to its
original state
·
Approving it would affect the residential
amenities of nearby residents
(d) In
response to the above, the Senior Planning Service Manager explained that the
application to retain the hard standing was retrospective and that the
University was trying to regulate the situation following the completion of the
work. There was no requirement for the developer to restore the green land and
it was not a planning reason to refuse the application. There was a need to
consider the impact of the hard standing with planning conditions to prevent
parking and events being held by the University as opposed to its impact in the
past when it was green open land without any planning conditions controlling
its use. It was further explained that in its previous use as green land, the
likelihood was that part of it could have been used without any planning
condition at all. The Committee’s attention was drawn to the fact that the
planning conditions overcame the impact on residential amenities. It was
further explained that there was a need to tread carefully because should the
site be re-seeded the University would not require any permission to use it for
events. The planning application was
submitted to the committee in order to facilitate and to provide scope to be
able to control the use of the land.
(dd) The Senior
Solicitor explained further that it was not appropriate to postpone considering
changing the location of the application as the site was partly operational in
any case and as this was the application
that had been submitted for consideration.
(e) During the ensuing discussion the following
observations were noted:
·
to withdraw the application and hold further
discussions regarding restoring the green land
·
concern regarding removing the bollards in time
·
improved screening and a suggestion to ask the
University to erect a fence between the residential houses and the land in
question
(f)
Following the above discussions, the seconder
withdrew his proposal. It was proposed and seconded to approve the application
subject to further discussions with the officers for more landscaping and the
erection of an additional fence on the boundary. A vote was taken on the proposal and the
application was approved on the Chairman’s casting vote.
Resolved:
To approve the application subject to further discussions with the applicant
regarding landscaping and erecting an additional fence along with the following
conditions:
1. In accordance with the
plans
2. Retain
the hedge
3. The
bollards to be installed within 1 month
4. The hard standing area not to be
used for parking vehicles at any time.
5. The site may not be used for any outdoor event, occasion or activity.
Supporting documents: