Agenda item

13.1 46C427K/TR/EIA/ECON – Penrhos Coastal Park, Cae Glas and Kingsland, Holyhead

13.1    46C427K/TR/EIA/ECON - A hybrid planning application proposing: Outline with all matters reserved except for means of access, for –

A leisure village at Penrhos Coastal Park, London Road, Holyhead comprising : up to 500 new leisure units including new lodges and cottages; Central new hub building comprising reception with leisure facilities including indoor sub-tropical water park, indoor sports hall, and cafes, bars, restaurants and retail; central new Farmer’s Market building; Central new spa and leisure building; A new café and water sports centre at the site of the former Boathouse; demolition of the Bathing House and the construction of a restaurant at its former location; Demolition of other existing buildings including three agricultural barns and three residential dwellings; Providing and maintaining 29 hectares of publicly accessible areas with public car parking and enhancements to the Coastal Path, including: Managed walkways within 15 hectares of woodland, the retention and enhancement of Grace’s pond, Lily pond, Scout’s pond with viewing platforms, the Pet Cemetery, War Memorial, the Pump House and picnic area with bird feeding stations and hides with educational and bilingual interpretation signage created throughout;  Creation of a new woodland sculpture trail and boardwalks and enhanced connection to the Coastal Path. The beach will continue to be accessible to the public providing safe access to the shallow shelving water; A Combined Heat and Power Centre.

Land at Cae Glas: The erection of  leisure village accommodation and facilities which have been designed to be used initially as a temporary construction workers accommodation complex for Wylfa B at land at Cae Glas, Parc Cybi, Holyhead comprising : Up to 315 lodges which will be initially sub-divided for nuclear workers accommodation; Central hub building providing reception and canteen ancillary to accommodation; A Park and Ride facility comprising up to 700 car parking spaces; a new hotel; A lakeside hub comprising restaurant, café, retail and bar; New grass football pitch and cricket pitch; and a Combined Heat and Power centre. To be subsequently converted (post Wylfa B construction) into an extension to the Penrhos Coastal Park Leisure Village comprising: Refurbished lodges and facility buildings to create high quality holiday accommodation (up to 315 family lodges); A Visitor centre and Nature Reserve allowing controlled public access; and Heritage Centre with visitor parking.

Land at Kingsland: the erection of a residential development which has been designed to be used initially as temporary construction workers accommodation at land at Kingsland, Kingsland Road, Holyhead comprising: Up to 320 new houses to be initially used as temporary construction workers accommodation. To be subsequently converted (post Wylfa B construction) into a residential development comprising: Up to 320 residential dwellings set in high quality landscaping and open spaces. Each phase of development will have ancillary development comprising car parking, servicing areas, open spaced and plant. Full detail for the change of use of the existing Estate buildings at Penrhos Coastal Path, London Road, Holyhead including the change of use for: The Bailiffs Tower and outbuildings at Penrhos Home Farm from the a cricket clubhouse to a visitors information centre, restaurant, café, bars and retail; Home Farm Barn and Cart Buildings from farm buildings to cycle and sports hire centre; the Tower from residential to a Managers accommodation and ancillary office; and Beddmanarch House from residential to a visitors’ centre

The report of the Head of Planning Service detailing the outcome of further discussions with regard to the application, subsequent to the Planning and Orders Committee’s 3rd June, 2015 meeting was presented for the Committee’s consideration.

The Chief Planning Officer reported that the report above follows on from the report presented to the 3 June, 2015 meeting of the Planning and Orders Committee where it was resolved that the terms of the Section 106 Agreement related to the Land and Lakes proposals be brought back to the Committee prior to completion of the Agreement. The Officer said that whilst a small number of issues remain to be finalised before the Agreement can be completed, matters have progressed and consequently, there is now more detail available in relation to each area of provision and this is reflected in the report. Concerns raised at the June Committee meeting were relayed back to the developer which has resulted in some areas being revisited, including the key concern of ensuring that sufficient safeguards are put in place to only allow development of the legacy uses if the site is first used as accommodation for nuclear workers.

Mr Gary Soloman, Burges Salmon proceeded to update the Committee on progress made with regard to negotiations and/ or agreement on specific  heads of terms since the 3 June meeting and the publication of the report as follows –

•           Education (1) – the developer and the Council have agreed a contribution of £1.604m which now includes pre-school provision and placements at Welsh Language centres.

•           Medical Care (2) – the Council proposes a maximum financial capital contribution of £600k towards accommodation needed to meet the demand for additional GP services and £178k for the demand on dentists. BCUHB’s assessment is that £1m is required leaving a difference of approximately £200k. There is also an outstanding issue with regard to a revenue contribution – the BCUHB deems that such a contribution may properly be requested and is looking into the matter before issuing a figure as to the amount. Mr Gary Solomon read out an e-mail from BCUHB summarising its position.

•           Leisure(3)/Swimming(4)/Library(5) – as per reported previously to the 3 June meeting.

•           Police (6) - £2.759m is now an agreed contribution between the Council, the developer and the Police with a contingency of almost £700k.

•           Ambulance/Fire (7) – The Fire and Ambulance Services have assessed the level of provision required as £676,740 and £1.1m respectively. Those figures and the methodology on which they are based are subject to verification.

•           Child Social Services (8) -  Funding for a Consultant Social Worker has been agreed for £56k to £58k per annum for a period of 5 years in relation to nuclear worker impact. However, following concerns raised at the June meeting in relation to the timing and duration of the appointment, the provision will commence within 12 months prior to the first occupation of the development by nuclear workers and shall be extended for up to five more years if the Council assesses that a continuing need for such an officer exists.

•           Heads of Terms (9) to (15) inclusive – as per reported previously to the 3 June meeting.

•           Green Travel Plan (16) and Public Transport (17) – A public transport capital contribution of £200k together with an annual contribution thereafter of £200k for the duration of occupation by nuclear workers towards the provision of a shuttle bus service between Holyhead Town Centre, Kingsland and the London Road wards have been agreed.

•           Heads of Terms (18) to (32) inclusive - as per reported previously to the 3 June meeting.

The Committee considered the report and the information provided verbally with regard to the Heads of Terms, and in the ensuing discussion thereon the following issues were raised as areas regarding which the Committee deemed further clarification and assurance were necessary –

•           With reference to the agreement that the developer must provide 50% of the housing at Kingsland as affordable housing (which will be market dwellings discounted at 30% of their open market value), the Committee questioned the alternative provision put forward that the developer can elect to pay a commuted sum to the Council in lieu which represents the equivalent of the 30% reduction, on the basis that if the provision is to be offered as affordable housing with a 30% reduction in open market value then the reduction should   be for the individual or else it is a gain to the Council and not to the purchaser. Mr Gary Soloman said that it would be a 30% gain to the Council in order to provide affordable housing elsewhere.

•           The Committee noted that the Police contingency sum of £689k is in order to provide a custody suite in Holyhead if such a provision is deemed necessary, and noted also that no information was available as to the likely/estimated number this provision would cater for. Mention was made in this context of the potential loss to Holyhead of its magistrates’ court as part of a Ministry of Justice proposed closure process and the Officers were asked to raise the matter as a risk in their discussions with North Wales Police. The Chief Planning Officer said that the concern expressed can be forwarded to the Police but that it cannot be included in the Section 106 Agreement as it is beyond its remit.

•           The Committee noted that Head of Terms (8) Children’s Social Services makes reference to vulnerable adults but that there is no separate section head to specifically address provision for vulnerable adults. Mr Gary Soloman said that at the time of approval it was only Children’s Social Services that were considered to be an issue. It has been deemed appropriate that a Code of Practice be established which could include vulnerable adults notwithstanding vulnerable adults do not form part of the Head of Term.

•           With reference to Head of Terms (8) also, the Committee questioned the choice of a Consultant Social Worker as opposed to an Establishment Social Worker on the basis that the engagement of consultants has been discouraged.

•           With reference to Head of Terms (2) Medical Care, the Committee noted that BCUHB had only latterly become involved in discussions and sought assurance that the level of contribution which it has assessed as required is based on a sound methodology and is robust and defensible. Mr Gary Soloman confirmed that BCUHB is now fully engaged and has provided an indicative figure based on initial assessment for this meeting. The details are awaited and the figure will not be agreed until there is assurance that it is robust. The Chief Planning Officer said that there have been extensive consultations with BCUHB during the preceding two months and that he had confidence in those discussions and that they will come to fruition shortly.

•           The Committee noted that many of the participating consultee bodies are regional organisations and sought assurance that expenditure of the funding agreed should apply to Anglesey and should not be directed to those organisations’ central funds. Mr Gary Soloman confirmed that monies agreed are to be applied locally.

•           The Committee sought assurance given the magnitude of the contributions involved and the project’s time scale, that the monies for which a commitment has been made will be forthcoming. The Committee noted that under Head of Terms (28), General Provisions, there will be a requirement to provide bonds in relation to the various requirements within the Agreement to help ensure delivery but deemed that a much greater level of detail was required in order for the Committee to appreciate how the bonds would be set up and how they would work in practice. Mr Gary Soloman said bonds are a standard way of securing Section 106 obligations and the mechanism by which bonds usually work is that a bond is set up ahead of a particular stage of the development depending on when a payment is due; occasionally with large scale projects a bond can be established at a level that covers the lifetime of the development – what type of bonds will be provided remains to be determined. Bonds will be put in place as a safeguard to ensure that development will stop if monies due at a specific trigger point are not paid.

Councillor R.Llewelyn Jones was given the opportunity to speak to the Committee as a Local Member. Councillor Jones urged the Committee to deliberate carefully before accepting the Heads of Terms as presented and to be wholly satisfied that the terms of the Section 106 Agreement are credible and achievable. He pointed out to the lack of clarity around how the development would proceed, and said that it had not been pinned down to a specific timescale or sequence of events. He highlighted the absence of information regarding overall costings and regarding how the commitments would be met. He suggested that more background information is necessary particularly in terms of an understanding on the part of Horizon that it will be making use of those elements of the development proposed for Cae Glas and Kingsland. He asked the Committee not to accept the recommendations because of unanswered questions or else to defer acceptance pending affirmation by the Economic Regeneration Service as to feasibility.

The Chief Planning Officer said that the merits of the application had been addressed at the time of its approval in November, 2013. Much time and effort have has since been spent on formulating and crafting the Section 106 Agreement and that he did not accept therefore that it was not credible. He confirmed that there is no contract currently between Horizon and the applicant, Land and Lakes Ltd. Should a contract not be forthcoming then those parts of the development relating to Cae Glas and Kingsland will not proceed. The Economic and Regeneration Department has been involved in the discussions and has been keen to ensure the benefits deriving from the scheme are maximised and that impacts are mitigated through planning conditions and a legal agreement.

Mr Gary Soloman said that some of the issues raised by the Local Member are covered by the detailed restrictions proposed in the legal agreement which are set out in the report from paragraph 1.1 through to paragraph 5.1.

The Committee considered the proposed restrictions as presented and commented as follows thereon –

•           The Committee was concerned about the terms in relation to the occupation of the nuclear workers’ accommodation as per paragraph 2.2 and suggested that the 50% occupancy level stipulated for Cae Glas provides insufficient assurance.

•           The Committee expressed concern also regarding the qualifying criteria for legacy use as set out under paragraph 3.2 and suggested that the “occupation by 2 nuclear workers for at least a 2 year period” criterion be revisited.

•           The Committee reiterated its concerns regarding the lack of detail in relation to establishing the extent of the contamination of land at Cae Glas, the measures needed to deal with it and the costs thereof.

The Lead Planning Case Officer confirmed that two planning conditions have been put in place to address the issue of contamination as reported to the Committee’s 3 June meeting. Condition (36) stipulates that a remediation strategy and long term monitoring and maintenance plan for contaminants must be submitted to the Planning Authority for its approval, and Condition (37) stipulates that no use of any part of the development affected by contaminants shall occur until measures in the remediation strategy have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The Chief Planning Officer also confirmed that the Authority’s Environmental Health Section is satisfied with those conditions.

Whilst noting the additional information provided to the meeting and the position reached as regards the Heads of Terms, the majority of the Committee’s Members felt they were not in a position at today’s meeting to be able to assent to the finalisation of the Section 106 Agreement without the receipt of further information and assurances regarding the specific issues raised in relation to the Heads of Terms and restrictions, which were –

•           Clarification on contamination issues at Cae Glas and proposed requirements

•           How monies received will be applied / spent

•           Restriction on carrying out the legacy uses

•           Delivery/occupation of Cae Glas vis-à-vis Penrhos

•           Bonds

•           Emergency Service provision

•           Social Services provision

Councillor Jeff Evans proposed that a decision be deferred pending the receipt of further clarification of the matters raised at this meeting as listed above. Councillor Ann Griffith seconded the proposal.  Members indicated that they would find it helpful if those matters could be discussed in an informal session with Officers ahead of the submission of a further report to the Committee.

It was resolved to defer a decision on the matter pending the receipt of a further report by the Officers in clarification of the specific issues raised.