Agenda item

Improvements to touring caravan site which include increase numbers from 36 to 60 units, formation of 61 hardstandings, re-siting of playing field and create new play area, service connections, demolition of amenity block and erect new amenity building to include shop, formation of internal roadway and parking area, site managers caravan and landscaping works.

LOCAL MEMBER:  Councillor Sian Wyn Hughes

Link to relevant background documents

Improvements to touring caravan site which include increasing numbers from 36 to 60 units, formation of 61 hard-standings, re-siting of playing field and creation of a new play area, service connections, demolition of amenity block and erect new amenity building to include shop, formation of internal roadway and parking area, siting a manager's caravan and undertaking landscaping works.

(a)       The Enforcement Manager expanded on the background of the application, noting that the site was within the Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

It was reported that additional observations had been received from Natural Resources Wales questioning the suitability of a private treatment plant on a seasonal touring caravan site stating that there was no objection to the application.

It was noted that the overall intention was acceptable, but officers had not been convinced that the plan as a whole led to environmental and visual improvements to enhance the appearance of the site in the landscape as it was not considered that the design of the new amenity building proposed respected the site and its vicinity in terms of its scale, size and form and that it would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on prominent vistas and on the form and character of the landscape which was contrary to Policies B22 and D20 of the GUDP and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Holiday Accommodation.

(b)       The following main points were made by the local member (not a member of this Planning Committee):-

·         She was supportive of the application;

·         The current facilities were insufficient and the proposed amenity building was fit for purpose, and was in keeping with the farm buildings and buildings in similar sites;

·         A space in the roof of the amenity building was needed to enable steam from the showers to circulate;

·         It was intended to provide high standard facilities to meet customers' needs, including provision for disabled people;

·         A corner of the reception was used to keep caravan-related goods to sell to customers so that they did not have to travel far;

·         The building would not affect views from nearby locations and there would be landscaping work;

·         The applicant had invested approximately £250,000 to improve the site and there would be seasonal employment as a result of the development.

In response to the local member’s observations, the Development Control Manager noted that the officers did not object to the increase in the number of units or the need for more facilities, but the proposed building had a domestic appearance and did not respect the form of the existing buildings on the farm. It was considered that any building should be in keeping with its location, and should reflect an agricultural building or nearby buildings on the farm.

(c)     It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application.

During the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted:-

·         The application should be approved as the amenity buildings were not excessive in considering the visitor numbers and that it was in keeping with its location;

·         The application should be deferred so that officers could hold discussions with the applicant in relation to the building's design;

·         Standards were important to customers, and this type of development would attract more tourists, thereby contributing to the economy.

(ch)   An amendment was made to defer the application so that officers could hold discussions with the applicant in relation to the amenity building's design. The amendment was seconded.

RESOLVED to defer the application so that officers could hold discussions with the applicant in relation to the amenity building's design.