Agenda item

Use of land for permanent alternative holiday glamping / camping facility (9 pod) (Re-submission of application C20/0348/35/LL).

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Rhys Tudur

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To refuse

 

Reasons

 

1.    Criterion 1 (iii) of policy TWR 3 notes that development will only be granted if adequate access can be provided without significantly harming landscape characteristics and features. Due to the need to undertake alterations to the existing access to create a safe access to the site it is deemed that this would have an unacceptable detrimental effect on the rural character and visual amenities of the area (which includes the nearby grade II listed bridge) which is contrary to the requirements of criterion 1 (iii) of policy TWR 3, together with policy PS20 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017. In the same manner, due to the essential changes to the access together with the location of the access to serve the proposed development it is considered that this part of the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the safe and effective operation of the highway and the proposal is contrary to the requirements of Policy TRA 4 of the LDP.

 

Use of land for permanent alternative camping / glamping (9 pods) (Re-submission of application C20/0348/LL)

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form.

 

a)    The Development Control Team Leader highlighted that this was a second submission of a full application to use land for permanent alternative camping / glamping to site eight holiday pods and one service pod ('utility') together with creating an access track, creating/upgrading an access road, landscaping, provision of parking area, installation of sewage treatment works and alterations to the existing access.

 

It was explained that the site would be served by the existing agricultural access off the B4411 public highway and would be altered to provide larger visibility splays, removing part of the existing wall and erecting new stone walls.

 

Reference was made mainly to the transportation and access matters and it was recognised that the applicant had prepared lengthy information in response to the objections of the Transportation Unit. Despite this, planning officers had not been convinced that the proposal as a whole could provide a sufficient or safe vehicular access for the proposal or for other highway users. It was highlighted that the public highway was comparatively narrow and therefore anyone who chose to walk or ride a bicycle from the site would be forced to use the highway itself as there was no pavement and the walls of the existing boundary walls directly abut the road without a grass verge between them.  This meant that vehicles slowed down and stopped not far from the corner of the bridge that has narrow stone walls should pedestrians or bicycle users leave the site.  It was added that the visibility of vehicles pulling out of the proposal's access would also be affected if vehicles stopped on the public highway directly to the south of the access. As a result, it was considered that the proposal provided vehicular access in a dangerous location.   

 

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

·         The application was to provide a small-scale high-quality facility for eight Luxury Glamping Pods.

·         The site was surrounded by existing woodland and was not visible from any public viewpoints.  It was also not located within the AONB or any other statutory designations.

·         A detailed Pre-Application Planning Enquiry was undertaken with Gwynedd Council.  The response was favourable, in fact the pre-application advice recommended applying for a 'Permanent Site'.  Based on the advice received a detailed planning application was prepared with the requested surveys and reports.   As part of the Pre-Application Enquiry, Gwynedd Transportation Unit were consulted, and Mr Gareth Roberts (Highways Officer) had met the applicant on the site on 4 June 2020.  At that meeting Mr Roberts stated that there was "No objection to the proposal from the Highways Department, however, he recommended adapting the existing agricultural access to make it suitable for two-way traffic".

·         A planning application was subsequently submitted following the receipt of the officer's advice and the existing application was re-consulted with a different highways officer - who objected to the proposals.

·         In the initial application the Transportation Officer stated that he was "happy with the visibility splays provided".  Two independent specialist Transport Consultants were engaged and both ATC Traffic and Speed counts were undertaken.  Based on both the independent consultants, the traffic data categorically disproved the current Highways Officer's objection - a detailed response was provided by the applicant's highways consultants and this had been summarised by the Planning Officer.

·         The site had been owned by the applicants for over thirty years and would be operated by her and her husband.  They lived locally.

·         They had worked closely with Gwynedd Council for over three years and had addressed all matters. They were advised that the plan would have received a recommendation of approval if the Transportation Unit had changed their position. 

·         At every point they had worked with all relevant parties to ensure that the plan satisfied policy and assimilated into the surrounding landscape.

·         However, despite information and data from two independent specialists, this did not remove the Transportation Officer's objection that was in the applicant's opinion, given the data, clearly flawed and incorrect.

·         The proposal was small-scale and for only 8 Glamping Pods, not 80.

·         The original Transportation Officer had no objection and did not raise any concerns - this formed the basis of the application.

·         The plan fully complied with policy - there were no planning reasons why the plan should not be approved.

·         The Committee was asked to consider the significant benefits the plan would bring to the area, local economy and employment.

·         The applicants would truly appreciate the Committee's support.

 

c)    The Chair highlighted that the Local Member, via e-mail, had stated that he agreed with the recommendation of the Council's officers to refuse the application and he wished to echo the observations and concerns already raised by Llanystumdwy Community Council. 

 

Objection on the grounds that the access is situated on a dangerous bend, poor visibility and tree growth is a problem there.  Also, the survey was undertaken in October, and not during the busy summer months.

 

ch) During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by Members:

·         That the applicant had responded well to address the requirements

 

·         That the access was dangerous

·         The design of the new access changed the locality's character

 

d)    In response to a question about being open to appeal due to the observations of a former Transportation officer, the Planning Manager noted that this officer had stated that it was possible to design a safe access, however, the design proposed was not safe; there were a number of elements to be considered - public footpaths, narrow bridge, no pavement, number of users etc. 

 

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

 

RESOLVED: To refuse

 

Reasons

 

1.         Criterion 1 (iii) of policy TWR 3 notes that development will only be granted if adequate access can be provided without significantly harming landscape characteristics and features.  Due to the need to undertake alterations to the existing access to create a safe access to the site it is deemed that this would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the rural character and visual amenities of the area (which includes the nearby grade II listed bridge) which is contrary to the requirements of criterion 1 (iii) of policy TWR 3, together with policy PS20 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017. In the same manner, due to the essential changes to the access together with the location of the access to serve the proposed development it is considered that this part of the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the safe and effective operation of the highway and the proposal is contrary to the requirements of Policy TRA 4 of the LDP.