Agenda item

Siting of 9 static holiday caravans in lieu of 12 touring caravans together with environmental improvements

 

LOCAL MEMBERS: Councillor Anne Lloyd Jones and Councillor Mike Stevens

 

Link to relevant background documents

To refuse the application

 

1.    The proposal is very vulnerable to harm and is located within a C1 flood zone.  The proposal is not part of a regeneration strategy or strategy by the local authority and neither does it contribute to key employment objectives that are supported by the local authority and other key partners.  The proposal is not located on previously developed land either and the Flood Consequence Assessment submitted with the application fails to show that risks and flood consequences can be managed to an acceptable level. Therefore, the proposal does not meet the justification requirements included in paragraph 6.2 of Technical Advice Note Wales: Development and Flood Risk and, as a result, it is also contrary to the requirements of Policy PS 6 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan.

 

2.    The increase in the proposed number of static holiday caravans is not small, or commensurate with the scale of the proposed improvements for the site and it is above the recommended increase of 10% in the original numbers on the site, therefore, it is contrary to the principles of point 4 of policy TWR 3 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Tourist Facilities and Accommodation.

 

3.    Insufficient 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 or enhancing the landscape and that the proposal is contrary to the requirements of Policy PCYFF 4 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan.

 

 

The Development Control Officer highlighted that the proposal involved extending an existing caravan site in order to site nine static caravans in lieu of 12 touring caravans that had an extant planning permission on the existing caravan site. It was highlighted that the application site was located outside the development boundary of the existing caravan site and was located on level land in the countryside off the A493 between Tywyn and Bryncrug.

 

The application was submitted to the Committee at the Local Member’s request.

 

It was reported that the site was within a C1 flooding zone, which was associated with Technical Advice Note 15: Development and Flood Risk (TAN 15). The proposal was considered as very vulnerable to harm and TAN 15 in section 6.2 stated that locating such a development within a C1 zone should only be justified if it could be demonstrated that the proposal met the relevant criteria. Although discussions had been held with the applicant's agent regarding these matters, it was highlighted that no more information regarding the matter would be submitted.

 

The Flood Consequence Assessment concluded that the proposal did not comply with TAN 15. Following Officers' assessment of considerations in paragraph 6.2 of TAN 15, it was considered that the proposal did not meet the relevant requirements and was therefore contrary to the requirements of TAN 15 and the flooding matters included in Policy PS 6.

 

Another consideration that was given to the proposal was that it would increase the number of static caravans on the site from the original 35 to 55 - an increase of about 57%, which was way beyond the 10% referred to in Policy TWR 3 of the LDP.  As a result, it was considered that the proposal was contrary to point 4 iii of Policy TWR 3 as it would not involve a small increase in the number of units on the site.

 

In response to observations received from Natural Resources Wales (NRW) expressing concern regarding the visual impact of the proposal on the landscape, it appeared that the application had noted an intention to undertake additional native landscaping but no details had been received. As a result, the impact of the proposal could not be assessed in full in terms of its setting in the wider landscape and, as a result, it was not considered that it would add to the maintenance or enhancement of the landscape and it would be contrary to the requirements of Policy PCYFF 4 of the LDP.

 

It was recommended to refuse the application.

 

b)         Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following points:

            In response to flooding concerns, he noted

·         That the application site was located on the periphery of a tidal flood risk zone with the majority of the caravan site, including the access, on dry land.

·         NRW had not considered that static holiday caravans had a cavity of approximately +750mm underneath the units - the caravan would not be affected.

·         There was access to dry land within the site if flooding occurred - this could be managed with a flood evacuation condition and plan.

·         The development would replace 12 touring caravans throughout the year with 9 static holiday caravans; therefore, there would be a reduction in the number of holiday caravans on this part of the site. In that sense, the development was acceptable in policy terms as it would genuinely reduce the general number permitted on the site.

                  In response to Landscape and Visual impact concerns

·         In contrast to what was noted in the Committee report, the application site was not prominent in the wider landscape and it was well screened.

·         He encouraged the Members to visit the site to see the existing landscape.

·         Should additional landscaping be required, it would be possible to meet this by way of a planning condition and, although not necessary, he would be willing do this if needed. Welsh Government encouraged landowners to plant more trees but in order to set a perspective, a 15 acre solar panel farm, 700 metres from his site was an eyesore.

·         The aim of the application was to ensure the long-term sustainability of Pall Mall Caravan Park as a rural business that would create employment for local people. 

·         His daughter had graduated with first class honours in Tourism and wanted to work in the family business. He noted that she was passionate about the Welsh language and culture and that he wanted to give her the best opportunity to stay at home. Approving the application would assist him to maintain his business.

·         Several points in the report were totally incorrect and misleading, portraying a negative attitude. He added that the application was a simple one and that matters causing concerns could be addressed.

·         Tywyn Town Council supported the application and appreciated the positive economic benefits that could be received. 

 

c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following points:

·         He was concerned about some statements in the report.

·         The site had been screened effectively and, therefore, this was not a reason to refuse.

·         The site was well-established, mature and well-managed.

·         It would bring economic benefits to the area.

·         The size of the site was insignificant considering sites in the north of the County.

·         There had been no flooding in the area for over 50 years and that past flooding incidents had not been dangerous.

·         Needed to consider and encourage caravan sites for visitors in order to try to keep brick and mortar buildings for local people.

·         Needed to secure sufficient resources for visitors so that they could enjoy the beauty of the area.

·         If a deferral would be considered, he encouraged a site visit prior to making a decision.

 

ch) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application.

 

d) During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by members:

·         In response to an observation made in the applicant's introduction, there was a need to research further into the time period of the touring caravan season.

·         Should flooding occur, siting the caravans on plinths would address the problem.

·         A detailed assessment and further information was required to consider potential landscaping.

 

            RESOLVED

 

To refuse the application for the following reasons:

 

1      The proposal was very vulnerable to harm and was located within a C1 flood zone.  The proposal was not part of a regeneration strategy or strategy by the local authority and neither did it contribute to key employment objectives that were supported by the local authority and other key partners.  The proposal was not located on previously developed land either and the Flood Consequence Assessment submitted with the application failed to show that risks and flood consequences could be managed to an acceptable level.  Therefore, the proposal did not meet the justification requirements included in paragraph 6.2 of Technical Advice Note Wales: Development and Flood Risk and, as a result, it was also contrary to the requirements of Policy PS 6 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan.

 

2      The increase in the proposed number of static holiday caravans was not small, or commensurate with the scale of the proposed improvements for the site and it was above the recommended increase of 10% in the original numbers on the site, therefore, it was contrary to the principles of point 4 of policy TWR 3 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Tourist Facilities and Accommodation.

 

3      Insufficient consideration had been given to landscaping matters as part of the proposal.  In light of this, it was not considered that the proposal would add towards maintaining or enhancing the landscape and that the proposal was contrary to the requirements of Policy PCYFF 4 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan.