Agenda item

Extend site area in order to site 5 additional holiday caravans on field 470, retain temporary access road and extend to service the additional caravans, erect 1.2m earth bank to northern and western boundary of field 470, revised layout of 5 caravans approved under application C15/0495/43/LL and relocate septic tank

 

LOCAL MEMBER:  Councillor Aled Wyn Jones

 

Link to relevant background documents

 

Extend the surface of the site to site 5 additional holiday caravans on field 470, retain the temporary service access and extend it for the additional units, erect a 1.2m earthen clawdd along the northern and western boundaries of field 410, change the layout of five caravans approved under application number C15/0495/43/LL, and relocate a septic tank

          Attention was drawn to the additional observations received

        

(a)     The Planning Manager elaborated on the background to the application, and noted that this was an application to upgrade and extend an existing caravan site.  The application included a proposal to upgrade the ten existing static caravans to holiday cabins and to relocate them to a section of the existing golf course. Approval had been given in 2015 to relocate 5 static caravans to the golf course whilst the other 5 would be relocated within existing boundaries. The proposal also included retaining the temporary service road that had received approval as part of application C15/0495/43/LL and extending it to serve the additional units, erecting a 1.2m earthen clawdd along the northern and western boundaries of the site and relocating a septic tank.

 

         It was noted that there was extensive planning history to the site and, when the C15/0495/43/LL application was approved, it had been for the whole site. It was reiterated that this had been of assistance to rationalise all historical applications on the site. The site was situated in the countryside and within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). It was also within the Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest.

 

         It was highlighted that a number of policies within the Local Development Plan (LDP) were relevant when determining the application. The main policy to consider when assessing the principle of the development was policy TWR 3.  It was noted that the policy permitted small extensions to the site's surface area and /or relocating units from prominent locations to less prominent locations subject to compliance with criteria.

 

         Permission had been granted in application C15/1495/43/LL to extend the current site to 3565 square metres while the existing application requested an extension to the site so that it would take up a total of 7658 square metres. This would be an increase of nearly 43% to the size of the site, based on its size prior to the 2015 permission. Reference was made to the need to relocate a sewerage treatment tank but there was no reason to extend the site in order to locate the sewerage treatment tank.

 

         When considering the reasons, the question was whether to consider the proposal as an extension at all. There was no physical connection between the element of the existing holiday park and the proposed location, and it was proposed to create a wholly separate access and track. It appeared that the relocation would lead to a whole new site. Policy TWR 3 did not support establishing new static caravan sites within the AONB. It was considered that the plan approved in 2015 had been an appropriate compromise to allow the extension of the current site in order to relocate.

 

         It was highlighted that a number of vacant spaces would appear with no explanation for use of the vacant space except as an informal play area.

 

         Concern had been expressed by the AONB Unit in terms of extending the site surface and siting five additional caravans on it.  It had been previously noted that the proposed location would be more visible than the existing static caravan site; but, in relation to permission C15/0495/43/LL, it was not considered that relocating five other units to this site would cause substantial harm to the character of the AONB. 

 

         The recommendation was to refuse the application.

 

(b)     Exercising his right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following main points:

·         Work on the 2015 proposal had commenced.

·         NRW had stated the logic for moving the septic tank and had submitted an explanatory note.

·         There was no clear definition of ‘small development’.

·         There was no visual impact.

·         The caravan site was now part of the area's character.

·         The applicant's intention was to improve the quality of the site.

·         These were holiday cabins and not caravans.

·         The access permitted in 2015 for touring caravans was unsafe; there was, therefore, a need to move it in order to ensure visitor safety.

·         Policy TWR 3 was irrelevant.

 

(c)   Exercising his right to speak, the Local Member noted the following main points:

·      It was an application to move the static caravans closer together - siting them separately was not ideal for visitors.

·      It was not an application to increase the number of caravans, simply to upgrade facilities so that there was more room for decking areas and visitor car parking.

·      Moving the static caravans closer together would place the children's play area in the centre of the site and such a resource was nowadays expected.

·      There was a need to raise standards to ensure success.

·      The site was not visible - the site could be seen from a small part of a rural road - one would have to look very carefully to identify it.

·      The site should be preserved for future generations - a need to ensure livelihood.

·      Surface area was increased because land would be converted back into green space.

·      The needs of site users would be met.

·      There were no objections to the application.

·      Over 200 trees had been planted.

·      It was a major scheme to improve the provision and upgrade facilities for the future.

·      There was a need to support local people.

 

(ch)   It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application in accordance with the recommendation.

 

(d)     In response to a question about holding discussions if the intention was to improve the site, the Planning Manager noted that the applicant had not requested pre-application advice.

 

(dd)   During the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:

 

·         The applicant was not requesting an extension to the site - he was responding to visitors' demands as raising standards was vitally important.

·         More land needed to be used to ensure improvements.

 

·         Accepted that the application in question was for a small extension, but what would the next step / or the next application seek?

·         There was no need to destroy the AONB - needed to be protected.

·         Improvements could be undertaken by following the 2015 planning permission.

 

(e)     In response to some of the observations, the Senior Planning Manager noted that the development was not a minor extension and, therefore, consistency had to be ensured when making decisions across the County. He reiterated that the application did not comply with policies.

 

RESOLVED to refuse the application.

 

Reason:  The proposal was not deemed a small extension to the site surface and it would involve relocating all static units from the existing site to the extended site leaving the existing static caravan site empty and, in reality, it was considered that this would do nothing to improve the design, layout or appearance of the site or its position in the landscape; therefore, the proposal was considered to be contrary to part 3i and vi of Policy TWR 3 of the LDP.