Agenda item

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

 

Link to relevant background documents

(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.