Agenda item
Full application to site 4 safari tents, 1 sauna building and other associated works
LOCAL MEMBER:
Councillor Craig ab Iago
Minutes:
A full application to construct
four 'safari' tents, one 'sauna' building along with associated work
Attention
was drawn to the late observations form that had been
received
(a) The Planning Manager noted
that an agent, acting on behalf of the applicant, had requested that the discussion
be deferred in order to allow the applicant to submit
amended plans and additional information in response to the concerns noted in
the report. Nevertheless, the officers did not see the need to defer; there had
been no pre-application and a new application could be
submitted in future, and the Planning Manager elaborated on the
background of the application. It was noted that this
was a full application to site four safari tents, construct an associated
building to use as a sauna along with other ancillary work including creating
an access road, parking spaces, access paths, landscaping, service links and
installing sewage treatment works.
It was added that the site
was located among agricultural fields outside any defined development boundary
in open countryside within an Special Landscape Area
and the Dyffryn Nantlle
Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest. It was noted
that access to the site led through the applicant's residential curtilage along
the existing private access road that backed onto a detached residential house.
It was noted that the
applicant, in submitting the application, had noted in the Planning Statement
that Policy TWR 5 had been considered as the tents
would not be permanent, because they would only have a temporary connection
with the land. The planning officers were of the opinion that the most relevant
policy was Policy TWR 3 as more permanent elements
were proposed as part of the development. It was added
that there had been no clear information or adequate reference submitted about
the intention with the timber platforms and the likely steps to secure them to
or into the ground.
It was
considered that the proposal to install electricity and water connections for
the individual tents, create an access road, construct a sauna building
(despite its small size), footpaths and hard standings and install a series of
lights created permanent elements as well as an excess of hard standings which
were contrary to Policy TWR 5. Part of paragraph 6.3.85 of the explanation of policy
TWR 5 noted: "They should only provide basic facilities for sleeping,
seating and eating without installation of water services or provision of
drainage facilities for WC, showers and washing. This ensures that such
structures do not generate a level of permanence that could increase the level
of landscape impact and site restoration should removal of the structures be
required.” It would not be reasonable or practical to set up electricity,
water and sewerage connections at the beginning of the holiday season and then
remove them at the end of the season. With these elements being
fixed or permanent, it would not be possible to agree with the agent's
view that Policy TWR 5 was the relevant policy for considering this
proposal.
Consideration was given to the relevant requirements of Policy TWR 3,
which stated: "proposals to develop new static caravan sites (i.e. a
single or double caravan), new holiday chalet sites or permanent alternative
camping accommodation will be refused in...Special Landscape Areas". It
was noted that Policy TWR 3 does not permit developing
a permanent alternative camping accommodation site on sites within Special
Landscape Areas. Given that the proposal was for the creation of a new
permanent site, it did not therefore comply with the basic requirements of
Policy TWR 3 in terms of creating new sites within a Special Landscape Area.
It was highlighted that the
application site was substantial given that the proposal was for four tents
only, and there was also concern that the parking
spaces were an unnecessary over-provision. It was considered
that the scale of the development was excessive in terms of its extensiveness,
and restricting it to a smaller area closer to the existing construction could
possibly be an improvement with regard to visual amenities. It was added that criterion 2 of policy PCYFF 3 noted that a
proposal was required to respect the context of the site along with its place
in the local landscape.
Attention was drawn to concerns submitted by Natural Resources Wales
with regard to the proposal for removing foul drainage water into a private
sewerage system rather than connecting to the main sewer system.
Attention was also drawn to the observations of the Transportation
Unit in response to concerns from local residents about an increase in traffic
on the existing rural roads network. With only four tents noted in the plan,
the Transportation Unit was not of the opinion that there would be a
significant increase to the movements in and out of the site. Nevertheless, the
Transportation Unit considered the parking provision to be excessive, and that
it would be reasonable to request that the applicant amend the plan to accurately reflect the numbers.
(b)
Exercising his right to speak, an objector to the application noted the
following main points:-
·
That he represented the residents of the Nebo community
·
That too many parking spaces had been noted for the proposal
·
There were no local provisions available for the enterprise - no shop,
restaurants
·
The local roads network was narrow and winding and, therefore, it would
be difficult for it to cope with more journeys
·
The proposal was very close to nearby houses that would have to deal
with noise, dust, light pollution and unnecessary disturbance
·
The plan showed the tents as being close together.
·
The site was located on a hill, and was therefore prominent in the
landscape
·
The general impact would be detrimental
·
A request for the Committee to follow the officers' recommendation and
refuse the application
(c)
Exercising his right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following
main points:-
·
That the hard standings would not be permanent - they would be removed
at the end of the season
·
That caravan sites provided hard standings, water and electricity - this
was a common provision.
·
The proposal was not dissimilar to touring caravan sites
·
That it would be possible to make amendments in the context of paths and
lighting so that they would not seem obtrusive
The above
reasons responded to reasons 1 and 4 for refusal, and
therefore there were no grounds for refusal
·
That it was important to consider the scale of the location - it would
be marketed for families
·
There would be no noise, and Public Protection had not submitted
observations on this matter
·
It was suggested that a condition could be
imposed for some of the features and, consequently, refusal reason 3 did not
stand in terms of connecting with a sewer. It was highlighted
that Welsh Water had expressed that it would not be practical to connect the
pipe - no justification for doing this.
·
(ch) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the
application.
(d)
In response to a question
regarding a decision at a recent appeal with regard to the size and surface
area of the tents and how this application compared with the application in
question, the Planning Manager noted that, amongst other things, the
application of the appeal had no intention to connect services, and was
therefore different to the application in question.
RESOLVED to refuse the application on the following
grounds:
1.
The
proposal involved the creation of a new static alternative camping
accommodation site within a Special Landscape Area. Policy TWR 3 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint
Local Development Plan did not permit the development of new alternative static
caravan sites within Special Landscape Areas.
The proposal was, therefore, contrary to Policy TWR 3 of the Anglesey
and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (July 2017).
2.
Policy
ISA 1 approved proposals only when adequate infrastructure capacity existed. In
this case, it was not believed that providing private sewerage treatment work
within an area with a public sewerage system was acceptable and therefore it
was not believed that the proposal satisfied the relevant requirements of
policy ISA 1 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan (July
2017).
3.
Criterion
7 of Policy PCYFF 2 states that proposals will be refused
if they have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of occupants of
local residences due to an increase in activity, disturbance, noise or other
forms of nuisance. The Local Planning Authority was of the opinion that the
proposal was likely to lead to unacceptable disturbance on the amenities of
local houses and that this would be contrary to the requirements of policy
PCYFF 2 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan (July 2017).
4.
The
relevant requirements of policies PCYFF 3 and PCYFF 4 noted that developments were expected to respect the context of the site and its
place in the landscape and integrate with its surroundings. It
was believed that the proposal, based on the scale of the entire proposed
development site, as well as the presence, form and scale of permanent features
such as an access road, parking spaces, access paths, timber platforms, sauna
building and permanent connections were unacceptable features that were
contrary to the relevant requirements of criteria 1 and 2 of policy PCYFF 3 as
well as PCYFF 4 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan (July
2017) which stated that all proposals should integrate with their surroundings.
Supporting documents: