Agenda item

Establish a touring caravan site (19 unit) with toilet block and associated works 

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Rhys Tudur

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION:

 

To refuse the application, contrary to the recommendation

 

Reason: The proposal would establish a new touring caravan site in a location where there is an excess of existing touring and static caravan sites, causing harm to the visual quality of the landscape and causing noise disturbance that would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents, contrary to the objectives of policies TWR 5 and PCYFF2 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan.

 

Establishing a touring caravan site (19 units) with a toilet block and associated works

 

Some members had visited the site and the area surrounding Afonwen on the morning of 27 February 2023

 

a)       The Planning Manager explained that this was an application to change the use of agricultural land, to establish a touring caravan site for 19 units, extend an existing building to create a toilet block and associated works on land at Ty'n Lôn, Afonwen. The application was deferred at the Planning Committee on 16 January 2023 for the Members to undertake a site visit. Since the application was submitted to the meeting of 16 January 2023, one letter of objection has been received.

 

The Manager noted that since the proposal entailed creating a site for touring caravans, the application had been considered under Policy TWR 5 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (LDP) that sets out a series of criteria for approving such developments.  It was explained that criterion 1 of the policy 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 positioned where the touring units can be readily assimilated into the landscape in a way that does not significantly harm the visual quality of the landscape.  

 

It was explained that the proposed development would be located on a level field with mature trees along the boundaries and would therefore be concealed from public places. It was reiterated that it was proposed to reinforce the screening of the site by planting a new hedge of native trees as the new western boundary to separate the caravan field from the wider field.  This site was not within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) nor within a Special Landscape Area and it was not believed that it would cause significant harm to the quality of the landscape. It was highlighted that the proposal had been designed to meet licensing requirements in terms of space and facilities – it was accepted that the development was up to standard.

 

At the committee meeting in January 2023, concerns had been expressed about the 'cumulative impact' because of the site's proximity to other static caravan sites such as Hafan y Môr and Ocean Heights, and the Afon Wen touring site opposite and Sŵn y Môr to the rear. Although there were several static and touring sites in the vicinity, the area in question was not considered to be an example of a location that was under extreme pressure from such tourism developments. Contrary to Policy TWR 3 that related to static caravan sites, the cumulative impact was not a consideration in the criteria of policy TWR 5, as touring use constituted a temporary use which had less of an impact than static structures. However, the criteria themselves responded to the cumulative impact in the sense that sites in obtrusive places that were not close to the main roads network should not be permitted.

 

Paragraph 6.3.81 of the policy was referenced, which notes that caravans should not be permitted in open locations near the coast nor within an AONB – this site was situated away from an open coastal location and there were no landscape designations in its vicinity.

 

In the context of general and residential matters, it was noted based on the distance and the hidden nature of the field that the proposal was not considered to have a significantly harmful effect on or cause disruption to any nearby residents. It was considered that the proposal was acceptable in terms of Policy PCYFF 2 of the LDP that related to protecting the amenities of nearby land users. 

 

With regard to biodiversity matters, the Biodiversity Unit had been consulted on the application because the field in question as well as land to the north and west of the site had been identified as a Local Wildlife site. In response to the observations, the developer had been asked to submit an Initial Ecological Assessment, and in light of the survey's results and a request for further assessments, a Botanical Survey, a Badger Survey and a Wildlife Mitigation Measures Plan were later submitted on the application. It was noted that the Biodiversity Unit had confirmed that the reports had been produced to a good standard, and they advised that the proposal should follow the mitigation measures and enhancements proposed. 

 

The Planning Officers remained of the opinion that the proposal was acceptable and that it would not have a significantly harmful impact on the landscape, amenities of local residents or on road safety.

 

b)      Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following comments:

·         Whether it was a static or touring caravan site – the opinion was the same – it created a high density throughout Gwynedd

·         The sites of Hafan y Môr and Abererch Sands were very large sites, let alone other nearby sites. What other circumstances would therefore be classed as an 'excess'?

·         He accepted that TWR3 referred to static sites and not touring sites, but this was the weakness of TWR 5 – there was not a clear definition of 'excess' – this was carelessness in the Development Plan of failing to set a criterion for touring caravans as existed for static caravans.

·         The aspects of policy interpretation must be considered appropriately – a clear definition must be set for excess in policies, to include touring sites.

·         He encourages the committee to refuse the application based on excess and to create a better policy definition in future

 

c)       It was proposed and seconded to approve the application in accordance with the recommendation.

 

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

·         The application met with current policy requirements

·         The site was tidy – the buildings and the toilets were of a high standard

·         One application had been permitted contrary to policy requirements in Dwyfor – need consistency

 

·         The comments by the Local Member and Community Council must be considered, who objected to the application based on excess

·         Some touring caravan sites did not comply with the regulations which stated that caravans must be removed over the Winter – there were too few enforcement officers to monitor the situation

·         The 'cumulative effect' criterion should apply to both touring and static units

·         There were many caravan sites in the area – in future, the coastline between Cricieth and Pwllheli would be one large caravan park

·         Why was the policy so slack in defining 'excess'? There was a need to create a new policy

·         The cumulative impact was unacceptable

·         The numbers of caravans should be listed. There were too many caravans in this area

·         An excess / over-tourism affected the culture, language, support for services and caused disruption to neighbours

 

d)                  In response to the observations, the Assistant Head of Planning and the Environment stated that the application corresponded with the current policy requirements of the JLDP – the report was clear and stated the relevant policies for touring caravans. The application satisfied the requirements. Reference was made to an application that had been approved contrary to the recommendation, for 32 touring caravans in an area within an AONB – there was a need to ensure that the Committee was consistent in how it applied policies. He highlighted the risks that the Council would face should the application be refused.

 

In response to the comments, the Monitoring Officer noted that the application met the criteria and if the members suggested refusing based on the cumulate impact, they would require evidence to highlight the impact from the situation. He added that the Committee must demonstrate consistency in applying and interpreting policies and criteria.

 

dd)       Following a registered vote, the proposal to approve fell.

 

e)    It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application on grounds of excess and visual disturbance

 

RESOLVED: To refuse the application, contrary to the recommendation

 

Reason: The proposal would establish a new touring caravan site in a location where there is an excess of existing touring and static caravan sites, causing harm to the visual quality of the landscape and causing noise disturbance that would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents, contrary to the objectives of policies TWR 5 and PCYFF2 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan.