Siting of 4 seasonal
holiday accomodation units in the form
of shepherd huts together with a shower hut (amended
application to that refused under reference
number C18/0393/20/LL)
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth Wyn Griffith
Minutes:
(a)
Siting of 4 seasonal holiday accommodation units in
the form of shepherds' huts together with a shower hut (amended application
from that refused under reference C18/0393/20/LL).
Attention
was drawn to the additional observations received.
The Senior
Development Control Officer elaborated on the background to the application and
noted that it was a full application for the siting of four seasonal holiday
accommodation units in the form of shepherds' huts together with a shower hut.
It was reiterated that the proposal would also entail the planting of trees and
shrubs together with the creation of a parking area. It was highlighted that
the application was an amendment to the plan refused in June 2018 under
delegated rights where the holiday units were sited in a row within the
application site. The huts would be sited in a semi-circular formation in the
amended plan.
It
was explained that the site was on a parcel of land in a corner of an
agricultural field, with unobstructed views toward the Menai Strait (a Special
Area of Conservation) and Anglesey (with the banks of the Menai Strait within
its AONB). Access would be gained to the site from a private roads network. It
was noted that agricultural land and the residential dwellings of Llanfair Hall
were located to the north of the site and open agricultural land and the dwelling
of Llanfair Old Hall were located to the south.
It
was reported that the principle of establishing new, temporary holiday
accommodation was included in Policy TWR 5 of the Local Development Plan. It
was reiterated that such developments were approved if compliance with a number
of criteria could be secured. The proposed development was required to be of
high quality in terms of design, layout and appearance, and located in an
unobtrusive location. Despite being located in the corner of the field, such a
development on a parcel of land, which by its nature and character was open,
would be an obtrusive development in the landscape and would create structures
that were incompatible with the open landscape.
Historically,
it had been noted that this part of the landscape would have been identified as
park land with an open character and nature, and although there were other
developments locally, these were on a domestic scale rather than within the
open landscape.
Having considered
the nature and amended layout of the holiday accommodation units, the parking
bays, the associated equipment and the introduction of human activities of a
tourist nature to the landscape, the cumulative effect of these elements of the
development would still be akin to creating an obtrusive development in the
local landscape. Any ancillary facility should be located in an existing
building or, should this not be possible, that any new facility should be
commensurate with the scale of the development. It was considered that adding the
washing and toilet structure to the four holiday units would not be
commensurate with the scale of the development since it would increase the
density of the units on site by 20%.
Policy PS14 of the
Local Development Plan also reflected the aims of Policy TWR5 based on the
scale and protection of visual amenities. Although the site was located in the
corner of an open field on the coast near the banks of the Menai Strait,
Members were reminded that although the nearby area had not been recognised or designated
as a special landscape and that the development would not have a substantial
impact on the Anglesey Coast AONB, it was considered that the proposal would
continue to have a detrimental impact on the character and feel of the local
landscape/park land as it would create an intrusive development in a rural
landscape.
In the context of
residential and general amenities, a number of objections had been received to
the application many of which included disturbance and noise. It was considered
that the site could currently be described as having a rural, quiet and
tranquil character and feel. Siting holiday accommodation units on this parcel
of land would inevitably disturb the quiet character of this part of the rural
landscape and would undermine the residential and general amenities of nearby
occupants on the grounds of noise/voice disturbance, outside activities and
movement of cars. In the context of
visual amenities, concern had been expressed by local residents about the
impact of the proposal on visual aspects and amenities of the landscape.
In the context of
road safety, it was considered that there would not be a substantial increase
in traffic using the private driveways and the entrance to the nearby class III
county road. The Transportation Unit had no concern about the impact of the
proposal on road safety subject to the creation of an additional passing place
near the application site.
Having
considered all material planning matters including local and national policies
and guidance, together with the objections and observations received, the
proposal was considered to be acceptable neither in principle nor based on its
detrimental impact on visual amenities nor the detrimental impact of the
proposed development on residential and general amenities of nearby residents.
(b)
Exercising his right to speak, the applicant noted
the following points:
·
This was an enterprise to diversify in light of the
uncertain future of agriculture
·
The shepherds' huts would be of a traditional
design.
·
Siting the huts in a semi-circular formation would
reduce visual impact.
·
Huts would be on wheels and, therefore, it would be
possible to move them during the winter.
·
There would not be any substantial impact on the
setting of Llanfair Hall listed buildings and no substantial impact on views
from these buildings.
·
Accepted the need to create an additional passing
place.
·
A personal enterprise that would secure the farm's
future.
(c)
Exercising his right to speak, the Local Member
noted that he was supportive of the application and he expressed the following
main points:
·
The applicant had had an opportunity to re-examine
the application
following a decision to refuse in June and that the huts had
now been
relocated.
·
Officers' photographs did not show the site clearly.
·
There were dense trees between the site and
Llanfair Hall.
·
The proposal involved seasonal, moveable huts.
·
The applicant lived on site.
·
The proposal was not contrary to policies.
·
The conservation office had not refused.
·
The concerns of Llanfair Hall were accepted but
waste management
arrangements had been
considered.
·
Small development.
(ch) In response to the observations, the Senior Planning Manager noted
that the main matters for recommending refusal were concerns regarding the
impacts on visual and general amenities. He reiterated that the application had
acceptable elements.
(d)
It was proposed and seconded to undertake a site
visit.
RESOLVED to arrange a site visit.
Supporting documents: