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
Minutes:
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.
Supporting documents: