Issue - meetings

Application for 9 additional caravans on the caravan field

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Rhys Tudur

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: TO REFUSE, contrary to the recommendation

Reasons:

·         The proposal is an over-development – it would create a cumulative tourism impact in an area where there is an excessive amount of existing touring and static caravans

·         It would cause harm to the visual quality of the landscape and would cause an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities of local people, contrary to the objectives of policy TWR 5

An application for nine additional caravans on the caravan field

Attention was drawn to the Biodiversity Unit's observations on the late observations form, and to the appeal decision of November 2023

a)     The Planning Manager highlighted that the application involved increasing the number of touring caravans on the current site from 19 to 28, and that there was no intention to extend the boundaries of the site. It was explained that the proposal had been designed to meet licensing requirements in terms of spacing between units, and no concerns had been raised about the density of the units in relation to the size of the site. It was not considered that the proposal would be an over-development of the site, and there was sufficient space to locate nine additional units on the existing touring caravan site.

The criteria of policy TWR 5 were highlighted, which concluded that the proposal was acceptable in principle. It was noted that the policy considerations included access, proximity to the main roads network, visual impact, holiday use as a touring caravan site only, and no excessive provision of hard standings.

⁠The members were reminded that they had refused a planning application on the site (March 2023) but following an appeal the application had been approved (November 2023). Since then, the permission had been implemented and the site was being operated as a touring caravan site. On the previous application, concerns had been raised by Members about the cumulative impact given the site's proximity to other caravan sites in the area. Although there were several static and touring sites in the vicinity, the area in question was not an example of a location that was under extreme pressure from such tourism developments. Unlike policy TWR 3 that dealt with static caravan sites, cumulative impact was not a consideration within the criteria of policy TWR 5 since touring use was a temporary use, with less impact than static structures.  

However, the criteria themselves responded to the cumulative impact in the sense that sites in obtrusive places that were not close to the main roads network should not be permitted. Even during the winter months, the site was considered to be well screened by existing landscape features. Paragraph 6.3.81 of the policy was referenced, which stated that caravans should not be permitted in open locations near the coast nor within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty; this site was situated away from an open coastal location and there were no landscape designations in its vicinity. It was reported that the Afon Wen Farm touring site opposite was relatively well hidden, and although it might share the same visual context from the county highway, due to the nature of the vegetation it was not considered that the development would appear excessive or harmful to the landscape at this site. It was explained that the issue of cumulative effect had also been considered and dismissed by the Inspector as part of the appeal, therefore it was deemed that the cumulative effect  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9