Agenda item

Full application to upgrade an existing caravan park by installing five new units, retain the temporary access road and create a playing field.

 

Local Member: Councillor Jina Gwyrfai

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To approve the application contrary to the recommendation

 

Conditions:

 

·         Five years

·         In accordance with the plans

·         Holiday use only

·         Confirmation of the number of units on the site in its entirety

·         Submission of details regarding the play area or any associated work

·         That the bund is constructed prior to the relocation work

·         Archaeological matters

 

A full application to upgrade an existing Caravan Park by siting five new cabins, retention of the temporary access road and creation of a play area.

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form.

 

Some of the Members had visited the site on 02-10-23

 

a)    The Development Control Team Leader explained that this was a full application to upgrade and extend an existing caravan site. She explained that the application included a proposal to relocate five holiday cabins within a site marked as field 470 (Golf Course) and retain an access road that was originally approved for a temporary period to serve the additional units, and the creation of a playing field. There had been a golf course here in the past, but this use had now clearly ceased. Permission had been granted in 2015 to relocate 5 static units or cabins to a location on a section of where the golf course would be (Field 470), whilst another five were to be relocated to another section of the site, namely field 471.

 

For clarity, this proposal would involve locating all the cabins together on field 470 instead of the permission granted to locate five on field 470 and another five on field 471. It was assumed that the proposed holiday cabins would measure the same as had already been approved. It was also proposed to construct a new earthen bund along the northern and western boundary of field 470.

 

It was noted that the site was located in a secluded and comparatively mountainous area in open countryside within the Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the Llŷn and Enlli Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest. The residential building, namely Gwynus, located on part of the site was a grade II listed building. Access is gained to the site off the nearest public road along an unclassified road that veers to the north before reaching the site itself, and then along a private access road; the unclassified road was also a designated public footpath. It was noted that the site was operating and was a long-established caravan park.

 

The application had been submitted to the Committee as a close relative of the applicant was an elected member of the Council.

 

In the context of the principle of the development, it was reported that the main relevant policy was TWR 3 which discussed the site's relationship and its location within the AONB. It was noted that the third part of the policy accepted that minor extensions to the surface area of established sites and / or the relocation of units from prominent locations to less prominent locations may be permitted, subject to compliance with a series of criteria which include that the proposal offers significant and permanent improvements to the site's design, layout and appearance and its setting in the surrounding landscape.

 

This new area was not considered to be a small extension to the surface area of the existing caravan site and no sufficient reason was seen for the need to relocate the additional five static units to field 470 when a previously approved plan showed that it would be possible to locate them on field 471 which was within the existing site and already developed.  Although accepting the applicant's desire to improve the site, the scale and location of the proposal could not be justified without firstly considering its impact in full. It was not considered that the proposed scheme would improve the whole site's setting in the landscape and it was not considered necessary for all the static units to be relocated to outside the existing caravan site. Consequently, the proposal would create a fairly substantial extension to the existing caravan site which would lead to creating an extended site and leaving part of an existing established site empty to all intents and purposes (although it had been proposed as a playing field). It was not considered that the proposal would offer something better than what had previously been refused under application C18/0614/43/LL, and since the same policies still applied, we must be consistent in our decisions. Since nothing in reality had been proposed to improve the design, layout or appearance of the site and its setting in the landscape, it was considered that the proposal was contrary to section 3i and vi of Policy TWR 3 of the LDP.

 

With regard to transport and access, reference was made to an element of the application that sought permission to retain the road that had been temporarily approved previously under reference C15/0495/43/LL. The wording attached to this condition permission was "The temporary track to be created to obtain access to field 470 must be removed and the land restored to its previous condition before commencing the fourth phase of the development". It was believed that this condition only applied to implementing the previous permission, and that there was no justification to retain it since the principle of moving five additional units was unacceptable. Nevertheless, the application itself was not considered unacceptable in respect of general road safety requirements and policy TRA 4 of the LDP, and since there would be a parking space near the units for the users' vehicles, should permission have been granted, this again would comply with the general requirements of policy TRA 2.

 

The Local Planning Authority recommended refusing the application.

 

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

·      The application was not an application for more units

·      The intention was to re-locate luxury cabins

·      The proposal would improve the layout of the site which was currently disordered and inconvenient

·      The site offered an area for static and touring caravans

·      The site had been established since 1947

·      A unit had been sold to a person who had been born in the area - the cabin allowed her to return to the area – she was supportive of the application

·      Buying a cabin spared a local dwelling from being turned into a holiday home

·      The proposal was no more visible than a large agricultural shed nearby

·      The applicant intended to plant 700 native trees

·      The extension was not substantial.

 

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

·         The Community Council, although they had not made representations during the consultation period due to it being the summer holidays, had discussed the application during a meeting in September and had noted that they did not object to the application (there was a further record on their website)

·         The community of Pistyll was supportive of the application as it created employment for local people

·         The site was not visible from the Llithfaen area

·         It did not impact on the local area

·         Although noting that the site was substantial in size, there were larger sites in the area

·         The intention was to get the site in order – not to extend but to relocate

·         The principles of Cyngor Gwynedd and Eryri National Park's strategy identified the needs to protect communities, language and culture

·         Although she was not familiar with the policies in TWR and TAN, the best sites were successful because of their good layout – there was an opportunity here to rearrange and upgrade the site

·         She welcomed a communal area in the centre of the site

·         The member suggested the need to see a design of what would be proposed as a play area

·         The site was well-landscaped

·         The application was a proposal to improve a medium-sized park owned by a local company – it was acceptable to the Llŷn countryside

·         The improvement proposed responded to visitors' needs

·         She did not object to the proposal

 

d)    It was proposed and seconded to approve the application, contrary to the recommendation.

Reasons:

·         That the proposal (planting, relocation, offering high-quality cabins and the provision of a play area) offered substantial improvements.

In response to the proposal the Assistant Head of Environment stated that the policy supported the relocation of units from a prominent location to a less prominent location. Here there was an attempt to move the caravans from a place that was currently concealed to a prominent place in the landscape, which contravened the policy. He also noted that an informal leisure or play area already existed on the site – why therefore was there a need for an additional play area? He added that should the Committee decide to approve the application, they would have to set suitable conditions.

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

·         There was a need to improve the site which appeared to have dated by now

·         The site was not obvious from the road

·         The improvement would secure jobs, keeping the community alive

·         The proposal would not affect the appearance locally

·         The road should be retained in order to have access to the site

·         The applicant was creating a future for the park and his family

·         The cabins were luxurious and high-quality

·         Visitors now expected high standards

·         The Community Council and the local community supported the application

·         There were mature trees and thick hedgerows around the boundary

·         Further landscaping would soften the effect

·         They gave thanks for the opportunity to visit the site

 

·         A similar application had been refused by the Committee

·         The AONB objected to the application because of the impact on the environment – it must be ensured that the committee was consistent in considering the observations of the AONB officers

·         There was no change here from the original permission

 

RESOLVED to approve the application, contrary to the recommendation.

 

Conditions:

 

1.    Five years

2.    In accordance with the plans

3.    Holiday use only

4.    Confirm the number of units on the entire site

5.    Submission of details regarding the play area or any associated work

6.    That the bund is constructed prior to the relocation work

7.    Archaeological matters