Retrospective application for the change of use of land for the creation of a touring caravan site and extension of existing building to create toilet facilities and erection of building for the disposal of waste.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Annwen Daniels
Minutes:
A
retrospective application to change the land use to create a touring caravan
site and to extend the existing building to create toilets and to erect a
building to dispose of waste.
(a) The Senior Development Control Officer noted that approximately five
members of the Planning Committee had visited the site on 8 December 2017 and
despite the wintery weather, the site's relationship with the local environment
had been addressed. It was noted that work had already commenced on the site
with the majority of the formal plots in place, and the vegetation planted.
Since the application had been submitted to the
Committee the last time, amended plans had been submitted which offered parking
spaces within the site, along with information on the suitability of the use
from the Baltic Road junction and Glanypwll Road to
the site.
Reference
was made to the relevant planning policies together with the response to the
public consultations within the report submitted before the Committee.
It was
noted that the principle of the development was acceptable and reference was
made to policy which permitted proposals to develop touring caravan sites,
camping sites or alternative temporary camping accommodation, subject to
compliance with a number of criteria as outlined in the report.
It was reported that the Caravans Officer (Health
and Safety Unit) had confirmed that the proposal now appeared to comply with
licensing requirements. Despite this, officers were still of the opinion that
the proposal did not comply with the requirements of criterion number 1 and 2
of the policy. The site's plan and layout was still restricted, and there was
no general open amenity space within the site for the use of the site's
residents. It was considered that the layout of the site used an excessive
number of hard standings and that they were not of a high quality in terms of
design, layout or appearance on the grounds of the lack of open space on the
site and between the plots.
In
terms of visual and residential amenities, it was noted that the proposal
complied with the requirements of policies PCYFF 2, 3 and 4 of the Local
Development Plan. However, it was unacceptable in terms of the layout and
density of touring units and the gap between the plots. In addition, it was
considered that the restricted plan was contrary to the need for amenity space
for existing users and future users, and the proposal was contrary to the
requirements of the criteria of relevant policies.
Since
the application had been submitted originally, an amended plan had been
received showing how towing vehicles negotiate the junction between Baltic Road
and Glanypwll Road which was acceptable by the
Transportation Unit. It was considered that it would be possible for the
applicant to also communicate with his customers who would be visiting the site
on how to arrive at and leave the site safely along Glanypwll
Road, which led straight from the site to Baltic Road/A470.
After
considering all material planning matters, it was considered that the proposal
was unacceptable and contrary to relevant local and national planning policies
and guidance. The planning officers
recommended refusing the application for the reasons noted in the report.
(b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following
main points:
·
That the planning
officers were requesting a restriction on the site's use but this was
unacceptable to him as he needed the site to be open for 12 months of the
year.
·
That he had complied with the law and that there
was 320 square metres of communal area including seating areas, barbecue areas,
that would be suitable for the proposed plots.
·
That he had spent approximately £2,000 on plants
and shrubs for the site, with an additional approximate 1,300 coming in March.
·
Reference was made to a
petition signed by 800 individuals who supported the development along with
letters signed by 38 local businesses including the Llechwedd
and Antur 'Stiniog
enterprises.
(c)
It was proposed and seconded to approve the
application, mainly because the town of Blaenau Ffestiniog
had developed recently and the number of tourists had increased as a result of
the developments; that the site was close to the town and the land in question
was desolate. It would provide an opportunity for a local person to develop on
a small scale.
(ch) Two
members noted concern regarding the density of the site and asked if it would
be possible to delegate powers to the officers to discuss this further with the
applicant.
(d)
In response, the Senior Solicitor explained that
the change in density would involve changing the application and it was not
anticipated that it would be an acceptable improvement. It had to be borne in
mind that endless discussions had been held regarding the application in
question, and as the applicant explained, a decision needed to be made on the
application submitted before the committee.
(dd) A
vote was taken on the proposal to approve the application contrary to the
recommendations of the planning officers and the vote was carried.
(e) The planning officers were asked for conditions for the application and
the following was outlined:
·
Compliance with the
submitted plans
·
No more plots than the
numbers shown on the plan
·
Seasonal condition restricting the use of the site
(March to October). The applicant wishes to use the site throughout the year
but usually a seasonal condition is imposed on touring caravan sites. The
Committee was asked to make a decision on this condition.
·
Holiday use only.
·
To maintain a register
that will be available to the planning authority to inspect as required
·
Standard Welsh Water
condition for surface water
·
A traffic management plan that notes the details of
the barrier slate in the entrance and clear directions for those who use the
site in terms of entering and exiting the site.
(f)
A member noted that the conditions proposed by the
officers were relatively fair. In terms of the seasonal condition, it was noted
that the normal season for touring caravans was 8 months.
It was proposed and seconded to approve the seasonal condition.
Resolved: To approve the application subject to
relevant planning conditions including those outlined in (e) above.
Supporting documents: