skip to main content

Agenda item

Application to site four safari tents, one sauna building and retention of children's play area and associated works

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Craig ab Iago

 

Link to relevant background documents

Minutes:

Application to site four safari tents, one sauna building and retention of children's play area and associated works

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form that had been received

 

a)        The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that this was a full application to site four safari tents, construct an associated building to be used as a sauna along with other associated work including creating parking spaces and a turning area for vehicles, landscaping, connections to utilities and installing sewage treatment works.  In addition to this, a children's play area which had already been created within the same site would be retained. It was explained that the application was a re-submission of a previously refused application, with amendments to certain aspects, including the relocation of the site to a location nearer to the applicant's residence. It was also explained that a new location plan had been received that morning which changed the red/blue line which outlined the application site.

 

Attention was drawn to policy TWR 5 which stated that proposals for touring sites, camping or alternative temporary camping accommodation sites would be permitted provided they comply with all the relevant criteria.

 

It was argued in the Planning Statement submitted with the application that policy TWR 5 should be considered as the tents would not be permanent, because they would only have a limited connection with the land. However, the planning officers were of the opinion that the most relevant policy was policy TWR 3, as in the case of the previously refused application, as more permanent elements were being proposed as part of the development.

 

            Attention was drawn to confirmation in the information submitted with the application, that the tents' frames and canvas covers would be removed, as well as the timber deckings which would now be laid on the ground and secured with a series of pegs. Despite the information, officers were of the opinion that creating other permanent elements to remain on the site at all times, namely electricity/water/sewerage connections for the four individual tents, in addition to the stone foundations under the sauna building, was contrary to criterion 3 of policy TWR 5. Officers also questioned the practicality of dismantling the tents and ancillary equipment (namely the bathroom and kitchen areas) and fully removing them from their site at the end of the season.

 

In addition, part of paragraph 6.3.85 of the explanation for 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 was considered that the proposal to install electricity, water and sewerage connections and a stone base at the start of a holiday season, and then to remove them at the end of the season, complied with the requirements of criterion 3 of Policy TWR 5 and the explanation of it. Officers were therefore of the opinion that the relevant requirements of policy TWR 3, regarding 'Static caravan and chalet sites and permanent alternative camping accommodation' must be considered as a result of this.

 

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 did 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.

 

In the context of flooding matters, it was highlighted that the only access to the application site was located within a C2 flood zone. It was noted that this had not been accurately highlighted in the previously refused application. It was explained that the revised plans, which had been submitted that morning, would take the access out of the red line which showed the application site but that this did not change the situation. It was explained that Technical Advice Note 15 states that only developments defined as less vulnerable to harm should be considered suitable within C2 zone areas.  In this case, it was considered that the proposed development fell within the definition of use which was highly vulnerable to harm'. Therefore, as part of the site was within a C2 zone, the proposal could not be supported on the grounds of flood risk and therefore, the proposal could not comply with the relevant requirements of TAN 15 or part 4 of Strategic Policy 6.

 

Having considered all relevant planning matters, including local and national policies and guidance, as well as the observations received, it was considered that this proposal was unacceptable as it was unable to satisfy the requirements of the relevant policies.

 

b)      It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application in accordance with the recommendation.

 

c)      In response to a question regarding a similar application that had been approved in Llanengan following an appeal, the Planning Manager noted that there was no comparison between both applications and that there were no costs against the Council as a result of the appeal.

 

ch)     During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were noted by members:

 

·         A concern that the Transportation Unit had no objection to the application given that there were very narrow roads in the area in question which were unsuitable to cope with an increase in traffic in and out of the site.

 

RESOLVED to refuse - reasons

 

1.            The proposal involved the creation of a new static alternative camping accommodation site with permanent aspects 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 camping sites within Special Landscape Areas.  The proposal was, therefore, contrary to the requirements of policy TWR 3 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (July 2017).

 

2.            The proposal involved the installation of a new glamping site in open countryside and some distance outside a development boundary, on an unsustainable site where the majority of visitors would be dependent on the use of their private vehicles.  It was therefore considered that the proposal was contrary to part 12 of policy PS5 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan (July 2017).

 

3.            Criterion 7 of policy PCYFF 2 stated that proposals would be refused if they had 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 to 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 general requirements of policies PCYFF 3 and PCYFF 4 note that developments are 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 presence, form and scale of the tents were unacceptable features that were contrary to the relevant requirements of criteria 1 and 2 of policy PCYFF 3 as well as criteria 3 and 4 of policy PCYFF 4 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan (July 2017).

 

5.         The proposed development involved the use of land considered to be 'highly vulnerable' to harm, and part of the site was within a C2 flooding zone.  As a result, the proposal was contrary to the requirements of TAN 15: Development and Flood Risk, and part 4 of PS 6 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan.

 

 

Supporting documents: