Agenda item

Application for 9 additional caravans on the caravan field

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Rhys Tudur

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: TO REFUSE, contrary to the recommendation

Reasons:

·         The proposal is an over-development – it would create a cumulative tourism impact in an area where there is an excessive amount of existing touring and static caravans

·         It would cause harm to the visual quality of the landscape and would cause an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities of local people, contrary to the objectives of policy TWR 5

An application for nine additional caravans on the caravan field

Attention was drawn to the Biodiversity Unit's observations on the late observations form, and to the appeal decision of November 2023

a)     The Planning Manager highlighted that the application involved increasing the number of touring caravans on the current site from 19 to 28, and that there was no intention to extend the boundaries of the site. It was explained that the proposal had been designed to meet licensing requirements in terms of spacing between units, and no concerns had been raised about the density of the units in relation to the size of the site. It was not considered that the proposal would be an over-development of the site, and there was sufficient space to locate nine additional units on the existing touring caravan site.

 

The criteria of policy TWR 5 were highlighted, which concluded that the proposal was acceptable in principle. It was noted that the policy considerations included access, proximity to the main roads network, visual impact, holiday use as a touring caravan site only, and no excessive provision of hard standings.

 

⁠The members were reminded that they had refused a planning application on the site (March 2023) but following an appeal the application had been approved (November 2023). Since then, the permission had been implemented and the site was being operated as a touring caravan site. On the previous application, concerns had been raised by Members about the cumulative impact given the site's proximity to other caravan sites in the area. Although there were several static and touring sites in the vicinity, the area in question was not an example of a location that was under extreme pressure from such tourism developments. Unlike policy TWR 3 that dealt with static caravan sites, cumulative impact was not a consideration within the criteria of policy TWR 5 since touring use was a temporary use, with less 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. Even during the winter months, the site was considered to be well screened by existing landscape features. Paragraph 6.3.81 of the policy was referenced, which stated that caravans should not be permitted in open locations near the coast nor within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty; this site was situated away from an open coastal location and there were no landscape designations in its vicinity. It was reported that the Afon Wen Farm touring site opposite was relatively well hidden, and although it might share the same visual context from the county highway, due to the nature of the vegetation it was not considered that the development would appear excessive or harmful to the landscape at this site. It was explained that the issue of cumulative effect had also been considered and dismissed by the Inspector as part of the appeal, therefore it was deemed that the cumulative effect of developing a touring caravan site on the land had been duly addressed during the appeal on the application.

 

In response to observations that had been received by the Caravans Licensing Enforcement Unit from a third party, highlighting concerns that the caravan site was not operating in compliance with the current planning permission, it was noted that the Planning Service was aware of those issues and was investigating the matters raised. Whilst acknowledging the possibility that the site was not being operated strictly in accordance with the planning permission, that in itself was not reason to refuse the current application.

 

Having considered all the material planning issues, including local and national policies and guidance, as well as the observations received, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable and that it would not have a significantly harmful impact on the landscape, the amenities of the neighbourhood or road safety.

 

b)     Although they were not present, the Local Member had submitted the following comments for the officer to read out;

·        The Community Council was concerned that the applicant was making retrospective planning applications regularly, and that he was not attempting to make planning applications before developing sites.

·        Concern that the application was an early addition after the original permission on the same site, with the addition leading to an excessive amount of caravan sites in the area, putting pressure on the community and transforming the natural conditions around the site.

·        Concern that the conditions on the original application C21/1038/41/LL had not been met, because there was no evidence that the biodiversity conditions had been addressed.

·        ⁠The area around the site contained high numbers of caravans. It could be argued that there were no other sites in Gwynedd with as many caravans as there were within a five-mile radius of the application. If there was no means of refusing this application based on excess, then it could be argued that the Local Development Plan had no power to be able to control the numbers of touring caravan sites.

·        To consider 6.2.1 as a relevant clause for refusing the application:

'6.2.1 Although often in use for only part of the year, touring caravan and camping sites are often situated in prominent and open locations and can be very intrusive in the open countryside, particularly on the coast. Particularly heavily pressurised areas exist in many communities located on or near to the coast, including extensive parts of the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Appropriate consideration will need to be given to the cumulative impact of the proposal.  As part of the consideration of the cumulative impact, the Council will require strong evidence to show that proposals for further units of accommodation in such areas will not add to servicing problems, unacceptable traffic impact or unacceptable harm to the character or natural resources of these areas, following mitigation measures'.

·        According to the above clause, THE APPLICANT was required to provide evidence that this proposal would not lead to problems, and he was required to propose appropriate mitigation measures. No such evidence had come to hand, therefore the application should be refused.

 

c)     It was proposed and seconded to approve the application.

 

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

·        The applicant should be enforced to carry out the required work – the site should be closed until the work had been completed.

·        ⁠Any conditions imposed must be adhered to.

·        The site was not visible from the main road.

·        Disappointment that the inspector had expressed that there was no evidence to support the opinion of 'excessive amount' despite the local member having highlighted the evidence.

·        What were the costs of an appeal?

·        The area was suffering from the effects of over-tourism – we had a responsibility to highlight this in order to protect communities.

 

In response to the observations, the Assistant Head noted that a draft copy of the information that had been prepared for the appeal had been submitted to the Local Member and the proposer for comments, and the final document that had been submitted to the inspector contained all the evidence and information together with additional observations that the Local Member had presented. He added that although the appeal had approved the application, there were no costs against the Council, only costs relating to officers' time and work in preparing the appeal which defended the committee's decision to refuse the application. In terms of the timing of submitting applications, he noted that there was no control over when applications may be submitted.

 

He stated that the application was for nine additional caravans and following the outcome of the appeal, it would be difficult to refuse the application in question based on the effect on the landscape and the surrounding area.

 

d)     A registered vote was requested on the proposal to approve, and over a quarter of the members voted in favour of having the registered vote.

 

In accordance with the Procedural Rules, the following vote was recorded on the proposal to approve

 

In favour:      3       Councillors Elwyn Edwards, Anne Lloyd Jones, Edgar Owen

Abstentions: 0

Against:        9      Councillors: Delyth Griffiths, Louise Hughes, Elin Hywel, Gareth Tudor Jones, Cai Larsen, Gareth Coj Parry, John Pughe Roberts, Huw Rowlands, Gruffydd Williams

 

            The proposal fell.

 

            It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application.

 

            RESOLVED: TO REFUSE, contrary to the recommendation

Reasons:

·        The proposal was an over-development – it would create a cumulative tourism impact in an area where there was an excessive amount of existing touring and static caravans.

·        It would cause harm to the visual quality of the landscape and would cause an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities of local people, contrary to the objectives of policy TWR 5.