Agenda item
A full planning application
for change of use of agricultural land to form a caravan site for 32 pitches,
construction of a new amenity building and all associate hardstanding,
re-surfacing and access
LOCAL
MEMBER: Councillor Simon Glyn
Decision:
Minutes:
Full application for change of use of agricultural
land to create a caravan site for 32 pitches, construction of new building to
accommodate showers/toilets, all associated hard standings, resurfacing and
access.
Attention was
drawn to the late observations form.
a)
The
Planning Manager highlighted that the site was located outside any development
boundary in an open site in the countryside - the site and the nearby area were
within the designation of the Llŷn Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty as well as the Llŷn
and Bardsey Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest.
As this was a site for touring caravans, it was
explained that the application had to be considered under policy TWR 5 of the
LDP that set out a series of criteria to approve such developments. It was explained
that criterion 1 in policy TWR 5 stated that any new touring caravan
developments should be of a high quality in terms of design, layout and
appearance, and well screened by existing landscape features and / or where the
units could be readily assimilated into the landscape in a way which did not
significantly harm the visual quality of the landscape.
It was considered that the proposed development was
located in a site that was relatively level within the landscape within a field
that was surrounded by established cloddiau and hedgerows with a series of outbuildings with
the dwelling that would keep the site partly hidden from the north.
Nevertheless, the site was entirely open towards the coast path.
It was acknowledged that it was intended to strengthen
the site screening by improving and adding to existing hedgerows and creating a
clawdd with
indigenous trees along it; however, it was highlighted that the policy required
sites to be well screened by existing landscape features and / or where the
touring units could be readily assimilated into the landscape. At present, it
was considered that the site was not well screened by existing landscape
features and it was not considered that the site could be readily assimilated
into the landscape. The site was in an open space near the coast and when
visiting the local area it was apparent that there
were only a few species that grew successfully in this area due to the sea
wind.
It was considered that the existing and proposed cloddiau would
screen the lower sections of the units, but due to the height of vehicles and
touring caravans the site would be visible in the broader landscape - unlikely
that landscaping would screen the site in its entirety without a substantially
harmful impact on the landscape. As a result, a considerable concern was
highlighted regarding the success of the landscaping plan and the significant
time to establish it - consequently, it was considered that the site's visual
impact would be harmful to the landscape during this time and the impact could
exist for years.
It was reported that various other touring caravan
sites in the area were visible from several vantage points over existing cloddiau and
hedges and a concern was highlighted that this development could contribute to
the cumulative impact of touring caravan developments that were already having
a negative impact on the landscape. As a result, it was not considered that the
proposal complied with criterion 1 of policy TWR 5.
It was noted that the site was within the AONB and the
observations of the AONB Unit recognised that the site would be visible from
several public vantage points. Members were reminded that the primary objective
for designating AONBs was to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the
landscape and, therefore, it was crucial that any scheme and setting of any
developments favoured the safeguarding of natural beauty.
It was reiterated that elements such as general and
residential amenities, transport and access were acceptable and, although
additional information had been received from the applicant, that the proposal
was unacceptable as it would cause a detrimental and substantial impact on the
landscape and the visual amenities of the landscape.
b)
Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant's relative noted the following
points:
·
The family
were local with firm roots in Pen Llŷn - they
had been brought up, educated and worked locally.
·
The
proposal was a plan for the whole family with the hope of being able to develop
an intrinsic, successful and long-term business in Tudweiliog.
With numerous benefits to the local economy for shops, public houses,
restaurants and holiday destinations and villages in Pen Llŷn
and beyond.
·
The
application was acceptable and satisfied LDP requirements with the exception of
one clause of Planning policy TWR 5 that was associated with the development's
impact on the landscape.
·
The applicant was astonished that the planning application had been
submitted for over a year and that this was the first reference to the
development's impact on the landscape.
·
Although no
objection had been received from the AONB Officer as part of the consultation
process, it appeared that the Officer had determined that a landscaping plan
(which would include a 1.5 metre earth clawdd and a comprehensive indigenous resilient tree
planting scheme) could not succeed due to its proximity to the coast. Despite
this, there was no opinion from a specialist consultant to reinforce the
Officer's opinion on the success of the planting scheme.
·
The Local
Planning Authority's concern about the ability to successfully landscape the
site was accepted. Should these concerns have been shared during the planning
process, there would have been an opportunity to try to mitigate and resolve
the impact sooner.
·
A
suggestion to propose a landscaping planning condition in the hope that it
would meet and reinforce the landscape impacts of the development. The purpose
of the condition was to provide a specialist report in order to highlight how
to establish tree growth and which indigenous species were the most resilient
in a coastal area. The report would submit accurate information to draw up a
comprehensive planting scheme to landscape the visible boundary.
·
It was proposed to add a second clause to the condition relating to the
submission of an after-care scheme to review growth over a ten-year period,
where any dead tree would be replanted with a new tree.
·
It was strongly asked whether or not the proposal was reasonable and
resolved the concerns of the Officer or the Planning Department about the
prominence of the site within the landscape.
·
The
situation facing rural communities in Gwynedd - especially the Pen Llŷn coast, was fraught and critical with local housing stock of all types
and designs being quickly snapped up by suppliers who needed holiday homes -
Air BnB. The ability for people to work from home
also encouraged an influx and communities were increasingly becoming Anglicised
in language and nature.
·
There were minor impacts on the landscape in the short-term here. It was
considered that a small caravanning facility offered a much better option for
visitors to be able to visit our areas and enjoy the fantastic landscape, and
then return to their communities at the end of their holiday.
·
With a lack of provision over the last few years, much more of the local
housing stock being bought was seen. By ensuring a provision for the increasing
demand for high quality holiday units, it was hoped that the reliance on AirB&B units and similar ones would reduce.
c)
Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following points:
·
Methods of diversification in the field of agriculture had to be
considered in this day and age.
·
Six out of seven criteria complied with TWR 5 and visible impact needed
to be considered.
·
Only three houses were within this rural area - the proposal would not
have a visual impact on them - the applicant's brother lived in one of the
nearby houses.
·
It was possible to have indigenous hedging seeds for the coastal area.
·
There was an intention to undertake landscaping work prior to the
opening of the caravan site - welcomed the responsible attitude of the
applicant in doing this.
·
The initiative prepared for future generations - opportunities had to be
given to local people.
·
The area was very rural - important to safeguard and protect for the
future - the initiative proposed this by offering a provision for visitors that
come to enjoy the wild nature.
d)
It was
proposed and seconded to approve the application, contrary to the
recommendation.
Reasons:
·
the proposal offered economic and social benefits
·
the landscaping/planting schemes were acceptable and overcame the visual
impact
In response to
the reasons for refusal, the Assistant Head of Department noted that similar
applications had been refused due to the impact on views - the proposal was in
a visible open site from public viewpoints, an application to develop
greenfield within the AONB and contrary to policies. How could it be justified
that the proposal met statutory requirements?
He suggested, either to defer the decision
and undertake a site visit or, in accordance with the Procedural Rules of this
committee, to refer the application to a cooling off period and to bring a
further report before the committee highlighting the risks associated with
approving the application.
e)
A proposal
to undertake a site visit was made and seconded.
f)
During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by
members:
·
Nobody would be in favour of the application if the applicant were an
outsider.
·
Encouraged visitors to stay in caravans who would then purchase houses
locally.
·
Visiting
the site would offer a solution.
RESOLVED to defer in order to conduct a site visit
Supporting documents: