Agenda item

Holiday accommodation (amended scheme) involving :-  

• Inatallation of bases for lodges with associated decking. 

• Installation of bases for glamping pods. 

• Associated infrastructure to include internal roads, parking areas, sustainable drainage and foul drainage systems. 

• Soft and hard landscaping to include the felling of some trees, retention of trees and undertake improvements to the existing woodland. 

• Erection of reception/sales building and re-cladding of existing building for use as a cycle and e-bike hub with electric charging points. 

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Beca Roberts

 

Link to relevant background documents

TO UNDERTAKE A SITE VISIT

Holiday accommodation development (revised plan) which entails: - 

·        Laying the foundations for lodges with associated decking.  

·        Laying the foundations for glamping pods.  

·        Associated infrastructure to include internal tracks, parking areas, sustainable drainage systems together with foul water drainage.

·        Soft and hard landscaping including felling some trees, retaining trees and undertaking improvements to the existing woodland.

·        ⁠Construct a reception/sales building together with re-covering the existing building and use as an ⁠e-cycle hub with electric charging points.  ⁠ ⁠ 

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form ⁠that referred to revised documents that had been submitted since the preparation of the report, reflecting the reduction in the number of pods and the elimination of development within a zone known as zone 5. ⁠ ⁠ It was reiterated that this did not change the assessment or the recommendation of the application. The late comments also set out a landscaping condition, and conditions to agree on a building and tree protection plan and an ecological and planting management plan.

 

a)     The Development Control Team Leader highlighted that this was a full application for the provision of holiday accommodation and associated work within an existing woodland to the south-east of the village of Glasinfryn.⁠ It was expressed that since the application was originally submitted in 2018, the development had been revised and reduced several times and the number of units has now been reduced to 25 holiday lodges and 4 glamping pods.

 

It was noted that the woodland, which forms the boundary with the Class III Road towards Glasinfryn, was subject to a Tree Protection Order with the remainder of the site being a candidate Wildlife Site.

 

Reference was made to policy TWR 3 which allows proposals to develop new static caravan or new chalet sites, or permanent alternative camping accommodation outside Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Areas, subject to relevant criteria.

 

It was reported that the first criterion specifically referred to an excess of new development, and a 'Landscape Capacity and Sensitivity Study in Anglesey, Gwynedd and the Eryri National Park' to define excess for this site. It was reiterated that the Study identified some capacity for minor to very small developments outside the sites contributing to the Eryri National Park setting within this Landscape Character Area, with the Study defining 'very small' developments as those up to 10 units and 'small' developments as between 10 - 25 units. Although the number of units subject to this application was 29 and recognising that this figure was higher than what is defined as a minor development in the Study, consideration was given to the average capacity of areas rather than individual locations, and consideration of the site as being hidden. To this end, it was considered that there was sufficient capacity for the site in this particular area, and as it was an already well-screened non-invasive site it also complied with the second criterion.

 

In the context of the criterion which refers to the provision of adequate access without significant impairment on the attributes and character of the landscape, together with ensuring that the site is close to the main road network, it was noted that an entrance to the site currently exists with an intention to improve it and provide a visibility splay to the satisfaction of the Transportation Unit as well as protecting the hedge which is subject to the Tree Protection Order.

 

Reference was made to the contents of the detailed impact assessment on the amenities of nearby residents, but ultimately and on the basis of the distance and hidden nature of the site, it was not considered that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on nearby residents. It was also confirmed that there had been significant discussion about concerns and impacts on trees and biodiversity, and that a number of assessments and surveys had been submitted together with a commitment to provide a plan to manage the site which would include improvements. The surveys submitted were considered to reflect the current situation of the site and highlight the need to manage the woodland to secure the future of the habitat and the biodiversity within it. It was reported that the site had not been designated as a site of National importance. It was recognised to be a candidate wildlife site, but it was considered that the applicant had addressed the needs of the site and as a result the development would be managed and enhanced subject to planning conditions. Therefore, the proposal was considered acceptable in the context of impact on amenities subject to appropriate conditions which would ensure appropriate control, mitigation and improvement measures.

 

Sustainability, flooding, infrastructure and linguistic issues were referred to stating that they had received appropriate attention, and the proposal was acceptable in relation to those issues.

 

The officers recommended to approve the application with conditions.

 

b)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following points:

·        That this was a minor development of a high standard providing a supply of holiday accommodation

·        The site had been considered ideal for the vision of providing bespoke holidays for visitors to enjoy the area and use the local cycling network

·        There had been a £2 million investment in the lodges constructed by local suppliers

·        The only resource on site would be a bike hire facility

·        There was a Farm Shop within walking distance of the site

·        The site was rural and well screened

·        NRW had confirmed that the trees were not ancient – all the trees subject to an order would be retained, but the woodland would need to be thinned out slightly

·        That he welcomed the officers' recommendation

·        The proposal complied with relevant policies

·        No objections had been received from the statutory consultees

 

c)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector to the application made the following observations:

·        Allowing the application would promote and create an independent company

·        The proposal did not support the local economy or employ locally (except for cheap workers)

·        That the language statement submitted was weak

·        Increasing the number of holiday accommodation units in the area had an impact on the local community

·        There was no intention to work with or 'co-exist' – this was a catalyst for the Anglicisation of the area

·        That the demand was 'endless' – this could not be satisfied

·        That Wales was a land of dying communities

·        They had already taken over the coast, and were now penetrating the countryside

·        Approval would set a precedent

·        The Committee was encouraged to refuse the application as it was an over-development – contrary to policies SO1 point 5.4 and 5.5 and PS1

 

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

·        That she proposed that Members visit the site or refuse the application on the grounds that it was an overdevelopment

·        That she shared the concerns of her constituents

·        That the report stated 'no static caravans in the area' - this was incorrect: within 3km of the site there were a number of caravan / holiday accommodation sites

·        That the application reflected a good network of bus connections; this again was incorrect as there was no bus stop at Llys y Gwynt – the nearest stop was 2km from the proposed holiday camp. Therefore, there were no bus connections.

·        Only two jobs would be created - limited income for the area. The company had its headquarters in Manchester

·        While noting a local benefit, the welcome pack which would be left for visitors encouraged them to shop on-line which would reduce the need for them to travel off-site; Large companies would benefit from this and not local shops.

·        That the proposed site was adjacent to wooded land and offered a natural screen to a busy and dangerous road. Felling down the trees would remove this natural defence and create an impact on local residents.

·        That the application was based on incorrect information

·        Extracting profit by creating an unnecessary site would be detrimental to the local community

·        Encouraged a site visit

 

e)     It was proposed and seconded to conduct a site visit

 

RESOLVED: To conduct a site visit