17 grasscrete parking spaces at Llanfairfechan Car Park, Llanfairfechan, Conwy

What was proposed

The application sought to extend the public car park with 17 grasscrete spaces as part of access improvements to the car park and promenade.

“The application relates to a flat rectangular shaped grassed area within a public car park on the western side of the Llanfairfechan promenade.”

“The application seeks planning permission to extend the public car park by constructing 17 parking spaces formed by grasscrete. The proposed parking spaces are located to the southeast of the existing car park, horizontally aligned (west to east) and run parallel with the promenade. The proposal forms part of access improvement works to the car park and promenade, carried out under permitted development rights, and have now been completed.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site was a grassed area within a public car park in a coastal zone, within a TAN15 defended zone and Flood Zone 3.

“The site is located within a coastal zone as designated within the local development plan. The Flood Map for Planning identifies the application site to be within a TAN15 Defended Zone and Flood Zone 3 (Rivers and Sea).”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal was unacceptable in principle and unjustified in terms of flood risk without a flood consequences assessment.

“The LDP policies require consideration of the location, siting and design of the development, to minimise its impact on the environment. Regard must be given to the impact of the development on flood risk, biodiversity, visual and residential amenity, and highway safety.”

“The proposal fails to meet the requirements of Policy NTE/5 as it is not in accordance with the development principles of the LDP and is therefore unacceptable in principle.”

Officer report

Flood risk concerns

The proposal did not meet previous TAN15 tests because the site was not previously developed land and no flood consequences assessment had been submitted.

“The application site does not meet the definition of previously developed land within Planning Policy Wales and the application is not supported by a Flood Consequences Assessment. Therefore, the proposal fails to meet the requirements of points iii) and iv) above and therefore is unjustified in terms of flood risk.”

“NRW have raised concerns due to inadequate information regarding flood risk and request the submission of a FCA, and provide the following advice: “The planning application proposes less vulnerable development (grasscrete car parking spaces) to an area of land that we understand to be currently undeveloped. The proposal would therefore introduce a new land use to this area and our following advice is provided on this basis ...”

Officer report

Public comments

One representation raised no objection in principle but expressed concerns about grass loss, flooding and protecting the remaining promenade amenity space.

“One representation received raising no objection in principle to formalising the grass parking. However, concerns are raised regarding the loss of the grass area and the increased risk of flooding, and it is queried whether there will be precautions put in place to separate the grasscrete parking places to protect the remaining amenity space along the promenade.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The council’s Head of Neighbourhood Services spoke in favour of the application.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed flood risk and considered the small development could be acceptable on a porous surface within an existing car park.

“Members discussed the proposal and considered the flood risk implications of the site, noting its location between two flood management areas.”

“Members noted that the proposed development was small in scale, located on a porous surface within an existing car park, and considered that the application could be determined contrary to the advice contained within TAN 15.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee was minded to grant conditional permission subject to satisfactory ecological comments and referred the application back for further consideration.

“RECOMMENDATION: (A) That the Planning Committee be minded to grant conditional planning permission subject to the satisfactory comments from the Ecologist.”

“(B) That, in accordance with approved procedure, the application be referred back to the next meeting of the Planning Committee for further consideration, as the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation.”

Minutes