Use of land for a
quad bike safari activity in addition to existing segway, paintball (skirmish
games) and bushcraft activities
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Aled Ll Evans
Link
to relevant background documents
Minutes:
Use of land for a
quad bike safari activity in addition to existing segway, paintball (skirmish
games) and bushcraft activities
(a)
The Planning Manager elaborated on the background
of the application, noting that the application had been deferred at the
Committee meeting held on 23 July 2018 in order to hold a site visit and
receive additional information. Some members had visited the site prior to the
meeting.
In terms of
general and residential amenities, it was noted that concerns voiced about the
proposal mainly related to noise matters. Attention was drawn to the fact that
the report included additional information to what was noted in the previous
report submitted to the Committee, in the context of noise matters. It was
noted that there was a considerable assessment of the noise matters and
attention was drawn to the additional observations received from the Public
Protection Unit, confirming that they did not object to the proposal in respect
of noise, subject to noise level conditions.
It was noted that
although the quad-bike safari was a new activity, it was not believed that it
would intensify the site's use as it could not be held at the same time as the
segway use that had already been granted approval.
It was highlighted
that consideration had been given to the additional information that had been
requested at the previous meeting, in the report under the heading 'Other
Matters' (paragraphs 5.18 - 5.21). It was noted that the Committee had
specifically asked for an explanation in terms of the site's current opening
times and whether or not they coincided with relevant conditions under a
previous permission. It was explained that the previous permission (granted on
appeal) involved opening 5 days a week between 9.00am - 5.00pm, namely Monday,
Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
It was noted that the application before the committee was requesting
opening hours of 9.00am - 5.00pm every day of the week, namely an increase of 2
days. It was noted that conditions on
the extant permissions restricted the site's opening hours, it was possible
that the site was open for 7 days a week already in reality. It was explained that there was no robust
evidence of this, however, from the site's advertisements, it appears that 7
days a week is currently possible at the site.
In line with the
Committee's wishes at the previous meeting, it was confirmed that only one
complaint had been received regarding the site's current opening hours, and
that this was recent. The matter was
being investigated by the Enforcement service.
It was explained that this matter should not affect the consideration of
the application submitted before the committee.
The development
was acceptable in terms of relevant local and national policies for the reasons
noted in the report.
(b) The
local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) noted the following main
points:-
·
That 8 letters of objection had been received as
part of the public consultation including a letter from the Community Council
which reflected the views of the neighbourhood.
·
That many had drawn his attention to the fact that
the applicant had noted that he had contacted the neighbours in the context of
the proposal but that he had not contacted them;
·
That the applicant had noted in his application
that the current activities on the site were not heard or seen by the
applicants. He was asked to note that this was not true;
·
Concerns in terms of the enforcement procedure;
·
It was alleged that the attraction was open for more
than the permitted hours and the business' pamphlet noted that paint-balling
sessions were available in the evening between 6.30pm and 9.30pm;
·
Concern in terms of road safety on the narrow road
leading to the site, with problems occurring in particular when a bus
transported people to the site;
·
Concern regarding the noise level deriving from the
development on nearby businesses and neighbours, as six quad-bikes would
sometimes be operational on the site for an hour at a time;
·
That the current use of segways on the paths did
not disrupt the neighbours and that he was asking the Committee to refuse the
use of quad-bikes on behalf of the neighbours.
(c) It was proposed and
seconded to approve the application.
During
the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:
·
That it was important that the extension to the car
park was completed before the quad-bike safari activity was commenced;
·
The planning conditions could be revoked after
receiving planning permission. Who could
revoke the conditions imposed by the Committee if the application was approved?
·
A request was made for a site visit due to concerns
about the noise level that would derive from the development. There was a
difference in noise derived from one quad-bike compared to the noise deriving
from six. Confirmation was not received on the site visit in terms of the power
of the quad-bikes that the applicant intended to use, either 50cc or 350cc;
·
Would it be possible to receive confirmation in
terms of the attraction's opening hours with evening sessions being advertised;
·
Concern in terms of the opening hours of the
attraction and the impact of noise levels on neighbours. There was no
background noise on the site at the time of the site visit;
·
The local member was thanked for highlighting
matters. Would it be possible to receive confirmation as to whether the
applicant had consulted with the neighbours?
Consulting with neighbours was important;
·
If noise complaints were received, would the
activity be prevented on the site?
·
That the Planning Inspector in the original
planning permission had imposed conditions in terms of the attraction's opening
hours between 9.00am and 5.00pm on Monday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and
Sunday for a reason to protect the neighbours. The opening days should remain
as 5 days rather than increase to 7 days a week;
·
As the activity was held on private land, there
would be no requirement for the quad-bikes to receive a MOT test. Over the years, the noise levels of the
quad-bikes would increase. Would it be possible to impose a condition that the
quad-bikes had to be given a MOT test, should the application be approved?
·
Concern in terms of the noise impact on neighbours,
would it be possible to impose a condition that the Council monitors the noise
level periodically?
(ch) In response to the above observations, the
officers noted that:
·
When an application was submitted to
revoke a planning condition, the applicant had to justify why the condition was
not required to make the proposal acceptable. In terms of the noise condition,
it would be very difficult to justify why the condition was required.
Application to revoke conditions would be decided upon in accordance with
procedures;
·
Apart from the planning process, it was
possible to deal with complaints by means of the statutory nuisance procedure,
under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It was not possible to confirm the
power of the quad-bikes as the applicant had not procured them yet. The noise
assessment submitted by the applicant was beyond the required desk assessment
and was in line with the national guidance, with one quad-bike being used to
calculate the total noise deriving from six quad-bikes. Should the application
be approved, a condition could be imposed that the noise levels were in
accordance with the background noise levels noted in the noise assessment;
·
That the enforcement investigation in
terms of the attraction's opening hours was currently live and so no comment
could be made on this matter;
·
It was not required for the applicant
to consult with neighbours with this type of application;
·
In terms of preventing activity on the
site after receiving noise complaints, it was dependent on the nature of the
noise. It was not recommended to complete additional work in terms of
mitigating noise impact, but should there be a statutory nuisance, a barrier
could be installed between the source of the noise and the location affected.
·
In terms of imposing a condition that
the quad-bikes received a MOT test, the applicant was subject to health and
safety requirements and so there was no reason to duplicate by imposing a
condition to this end;
·
It could not be presumed that the noise
impact would be any different to the evidence provided in the noise assessment
submitted as part of the application. Installing a noise monitoring machine
would be an option to consider as part of the investigation by the Public
Protection Unit or Planning Enforcement Unit should a complaint be received.
RESOLVED to
approve the application.
Conditions:
1. Time
2. Compliance with plans
3. Trees
management plan
4. Limit
opening times
5. Restrict
the numbers
6. Complete
the car park extension
7. A noise condition
Supporting documents: