Site two additional static caravans to increase numbers from 17 to 19 and construction of new earth bank
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor John Brynmor Hughes
Minutes:
Site two
additional static caravans to increase numbers from 17 to 19 and construction
of an earth bank
a)
The Planning Manager elaborated on the background
of this application, and noted that this was an application to site two
additional static caravans on the site together with additional landscaping
which would include the construction of a bank and reinforcing the existing
vegetation. It was highlighted that two similar
applications had already been refused during 2017. It was
noted that the existing static site had planning permission for 17
units. There was also a site for touring caravans
located at Tŷ Hir,
authorised via a legal use certificate application in 2013. It was noted that the site was located within a Special
Landscape Area and a Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest, and was
submitted to Committee at the request of the local member.
In the
context of the principle of the development, it was explained
that the main policy to consider when assessing the development was policy TWR
3 – part 3. It was added that this
policy may permit small extensions to the site's
surface and /or re-locating units from prominent locations to less prominent
locations subject to compliance with criteria. One of the criteria was that the
improvements did not lead to an increase in the number of static caravans or
chalet units on the site, unless, in exceptional circumstances, the proposals
would involve relocating existing sites located within the Coastal Change
Management Area. The policy did not allow an increase in the number of static
caravans on sites within the AONB or the Special Landscape Areas. It was noted that the proposal involved increasing the numbers
of units on site by adding two units. The proposal did not comply with the
requirements of Policy TWR 3 in terms of sites within the Special Landscape
Area.
It was acknowledged that the development demonstrated some
improvements to the facilities of the current static site, and that the
additional landscaping would improve the appearance and the environment of the
site. Nevertheless, attention was drawn to paragraphs
5.3 and 5.4 of the report, and it was emphasised that any landscaping plan,
improvements or exchanging the touring units for static units would not
overcome the fact that the Policy did not permit increasing the number of
caravans on sites within a Special Landscape Area.
b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
applicant noted the following points:
· The request is
only two additional static units
· The content of the
policies and the report was acknowledged but there was a real possibility to
adjust the application to comply with the policy
· Two static
caravans had been added in 2014, but it was decided not to increase further -
they did not know at the time that the Local Development Plan would prevent a
further increase in numbers
· There was a
possible shortcoming by the officers in terms of sharing information about the
changes
· The two additional
units would be located in a concealed site
· It was accepted
that there was a possibility to relocate the static units to the lower end of
the site or to exchange a static unit for a touring unit
· This was a local
business was responding to the demand
· The business was
making the most of tourism in order to ensure a successful boom in the
countryside
c)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local
Member (not a member of this Planning Committee) made the following points:-
·
Reference was made to point 3 of Policy TWR 3
·
This was one site in two fields - it was proposed to move two units from one field to the other.
·
The site was tidy and was being managed well
·
The visitors supported local businesses
·
The business was run by a local family
·
It was suggested to defer
the application and hold a site visit.
ch) It was proposed and seconded to
refuse the application.
d)
During the ensuing
discussion, the following points were highlighted by individual Members:
·
The applicant may have
been misled with the amendments to the new Local Development Plan
·
A site visit would be of advantage.
·
No objections had been received from the
Transportation Unit
·
There was no major
difference between 17 and 19 units
dd) A proposal for an amendment to
undertake a site visit was made and seconded.
e)
It was
voted to carry out a site visit. The proposal fell.
f)
It was proposed and seconded to refuse the
application in accordance with the recommendation.
ff) During the ensuing discussion, the
following points were highlighted by individual members:
·
It had been refused twice last year
·
After years of creating
new policies, the member would not want to contradict them at the first
opportunity
·
Was it not required to
ensure that the conditions of previous applications were
implemented before submitting a new application?
·
On what grounds was the application submitted to the Committee? A valid
planning reason was required to do this
In response to an
observation regarding the validity of exchanging two static units with two
touring caravans, it was initially noted that the touring site and the static
site were considered as two separate sites as referred to in the report. Exchanging touring units for static ones
would not be acceptable because the scale proposed was one for one and this was
unacceptable. In circumstances where an exchange had been
supported in the past, the exchange scale was much higher and a clear
planning improvement would be proposed, e.g. in terms of transportation
improvements.
RESOLVED
To refuse -
The
proposal involves increasing the number of static caravans on an existing
static caravan site within a Special Landscape Area. Policy TWR 3 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey
Joint Local Development Plan does not allow an increase in the number of static
caravans or chalet units on existing sites within a Special Landscape
Area. The proposal is, therefore,
contrary to Policy TWR 3 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development
Plan (July 2017).
Supporting documents: