Site 8 additional pods, extension to site, access road, parking spaces and extend amenity building
LOCAL MEMBER:
Councillor Anwen J Davies
Link
to relevant background documents
Minutes:
To site eight additional pods, extend the site,
access road, parking spaces and extend amenity building
Attention was
drawn to the late observations form that had been received
It was highlighted
that the application had been submitted to the Committee as the site was owned
by a Council member.
a)
The Planning Manager expanded on the application's
background, and noted that the application involved creating a camping site for
eight pods which would include an access road and parking spaces. It was noted that it was also intended to
construct an extension to the existing self-catering room, to serve the eight
new pods.
From
the information submitted as part of the application, it was highlighted that
the occupancy period of the pods would be between 1 March and 31 October and
planning permission would restrict the occupancy of the site to that period
within any year. The pods would remain
on site throughout the year, and would be unoccupied during the winter months. Bearing in mind that the pods will not be
moved for storage to an alternative site during the winter months, the
application was considered under Policy TWR 3, which concerns touring caravan
and chalet sites and permanent alternative camping accommodation. The site lies
within a Special Landscape Area and Policy TWR 3 states that proposals for the
development of new permanent alternative camping accommodation will be refused
within the Special Landscape Area.
In the context of
visual amenities, it was reported that the field, that was subject to the
application, was approximately three metres higher than the ground level of the
existing caravan site and as part of the proposal the field would be excavated
to reduce the level by approximately one metre. Consequently, the lowest metre of the pods
would be sunken into the ground compared to the existing field ground
level. Although the sides of the site
would be graded when undertaking the excavation work, it was considered that
the upper half of the pods would remain visible and the applicant had no
intention to undertake landscaping work as part of the application. It was recognised that the dark green colour
of the roofs of the pods would reduce their prominence in the landscape;
however, this did not overcome the fact that pods would be placed on higher
land than the nearby land. In light of this, it was considered that the
proposal would not do anything to maintain, improve or restore the recognised
character of the Special Landscape Area and the proposal was contrary to the
requirements of Policies PCYFF 4 and AMG 2 of the Local Development Plan.
When considering
transport and access matters it was noted that access to the site would be
along the existing agricultural track and although the proposed site would
share the same access to the county highway, there would be a different access
to the proposed site and the existing caravan site. Facilities such as toilets / showers and
amenities room would be shared between the existing site and the proposed
development. It was considered that the proposal was acceptable in terms of
road safety and complied with the relevant policies.
b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following main
points:-
·
Following
a suggestion by Gwynedd Council's Biodiversity Unit to place a reed bed in the
marsh as a sewerage system, this would not be considered as it would create an
undesirable odour and would attract flies.
·
There
was a wish to keep Cors Geirch as it was - it had been kept in this way since
the 1940s
·
There
was sufficient room to site an additional eight pods on the site
·
That
it was not possible to move the pods over the winter months as the steel
framework would bend
·
There
were arrangements for the septic tank to be emptied twice a year
·
It
was not possible to plant trees as their roots would make the land unstable
·
Planning
permission had been granted for two pods, therefore why make a difference?
c) It was proposed and
seconded to refuse the application in accordance with the recommendation
ch) During the ensuing
discussion, the following observations were made by Members:
·
That the pods suited the landscape better than
caravans
·
That farmers had to consider diversification Therefore
tourism was an option
·
That it was possible to resolve the situation with the
septic tank if correct information was submitted
·
If the pods were mobile and if the applicant
was willing to move them, was the application acceptable?
·
That the landscaping element needed to be
emphasised
·
If it was possible to consult and compromise with the
applicant on the three reasons for refusal, the application was likely to be
approved.
d) In response to a question about how the
applicant may be supported to realise the enterprise, the Planning Manager
noted that the application was not acceptable due to basic principles. He highlighted that the applicant had not
requested pre-application advice and although the Planning Unit had sought
consultation discussions with the applicant, it was evident that there was no
intention to amend the application. The
Senior Planning Manager added that the recommendation was strong and the
principle of Policy TWR3 had recently been supported in an appeal.
dd)
In response to a comment regarding
leaving the existing two pods out through the winter, it was asked what was the
difference with leaving another eight pods, the Senior Planning Manager stated
that there was currently an enforcement investigation into the situation with
the two pods. He added that a condition had been imposed on the application to
move the pods at the end of the holiday season
He also noted that storage permission existed on the site.
RESOLVED to refuse the application.
1. The
proposal would create a new alternative camping accommodation site within a
Special Landscape Area and therefore contrary to point 1 of Policy TWR 3 of the
Local Development Plan.
2. It is not considered that the proposal would
integrate with its surroundings and no consideration was given to landscaping
matters as part of the proposal. In
light of this, it is not considered that the proposal would add towards
maintaining, improving or restoring the recognised character of the Special
Landscape Area and that the proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements
of Policy PCYFF 4 and AMG 2 of the Local Development Plan.
3. No evidence was submitted as part of the application to demonstrate that
the existing septic tank has the capacity to serve the eight additional
pods. Designated sites are near the site
which include a Special Area of Conservation, a Site of Special Scientific
Interest and a Ramsar site. As a result
of this lack of information, the impact of the proposal on these sites cannot
be fully assessed and, therefore, the proposal in its current form is contrary
to the requirements of Policy PS 19 of the Local Development Plan and Planning
Policy Wales.
Supporting documents: