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
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: